North Middlesex Hospital Accident and Emergency Services: Cancer Patients

Debate between Kate Osamor and Jim Shannon

Tuesday 3rd March 2026 Westminster Hall

[Kate Osamor (Edmonton and Winchmore Hill) (Lab/Co-op)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered the experience of cancer patients with accident and emergency services at North Middlesex Hospital.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Dr Murrison. I thank you and the House for granting me the opportunity to speak about the urgent care pathway for cancer patients at North Middlesex university hospital, and to discuss the potential for dedicated funding for an oncology assessment unit.

In Edmonton and Winchmore Hill, as in many constituencies across the country, too many people with cancer are being let down. In the UK, cancer mortality rates are significantly higher than in comparable countries, and the survival rate is lower. I am glad that the Government have recognised the issue and are taking steps to address it, most significantly through the national cancer plan. I welcome the plan’s ambition to diagnose more cancers early, to ensure that treatment starts more quickly and to improve survival.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I commend the hon. Lady on securing the debate. She is right to illustrate this important issue at her local hospital, which is replicated wherever we might be the United Kingdom. Indeed, people back home are waiting 12 hours for admission or discharge. Those who attend A&E should be treated within four hours, but that is not happening. Does the hon. Lady agree that strengthening community-based cancer services is essential to protect patients, ease pressure on emergency departments and ensure that people with cancer get the right care in the right place at the right time?

[Kate Osamor]

I thank the hon. Member for his intervention; later in my speech I will discuss the work the community is doing.

Faster diagnosis and quicker treatment are vital to improving outcomes for cancer patients. However, I am concerned that the Government are placing less emphasis on other critical aspects of the care that cancer patients receive. The case of North Middlesex hospital in my Edmonton and Winchmore Hill constituency, which I am very proud to represent, is evidence of that. On the one hand, since 2023, North Middlesex hospital has received two new radiotherapy machines, which should help to ensure that cancer patients receive treatment more quickly and limit the number of hospital visits they need to make. But on the other hand, the hospital is under-resourced in other important areas, which is having a negative impact on patients’ experiences.

I have particular concerns about the experience of cancer patients in the accident and emergency department. From talking to my constituents and their families, I know that oncology patients who are admitted to the hospital are often assessed in the emergency department, but it does not have the physical space or isolation capacity required to safely manage immunocompromised individuals. Despite an acute oncology service that works extremely hard to prioritise those patients, the North Middlesex hospital emergency department often struggles to provide appropriate private triage areas or guarantee a rapid review for vulnerable cancer patients, because of high patient volumes and infection-control pressures. Over recent years, this has caused a number of my constituents to be put in an environment that is unsuitable for their condition, and caused a great deal of upset and discomfort.

I have been in correspondence with one of my constituents, Mrs Mary Thorn, regarding the experience of her late husband, Mr Jack Thorn, at North Middlesex hospital, and Mrs Thorn has given me permission to discuss the experience of her late husband at the hospital. Mr Thorn was diagnosed with cancer in July 2022, and in January 2023 he began chemotherapy treatment. Following the conclusion of the first type of chemotherapy treatment, Mr Thorn was told multiple times that he needed to be admitted back into hospital. However, upon arriving at hospital, rather than being admitted straight into the cancer ward, he was made to sit in the A&E waiting room to be triaged. On one occasion, he was made to wait for 15 hours. Because of the immunosuppressive treatment that many cancer patients undergo, they are at a heightened risk of infection, meaning that staying in A&E wards for extended periods risks worsening their condition.

Since my correspondence with Mrs Thorn, I have heard from several other constituents who have suffered similar ordeals. One of my constituents, who has now sadly passed away, went to the North Middlesex emergency department following a concerning reaction to the immunotherapy treatment she was receiving for her cancer. She arrived at the hospital on a Saturday and was not moved into a side room until the Monday, meaning that she was forced to sleep in a chair for two days while very unwell. During this time she could not shower, had no privacy and was unable to return home to collect any belongings or change clothing.

Since hearing of Mr Thorn’s experience, I have engaged closely with the North Middlesex hospital and the Royal Free London NHS foundation trust, which now manages the hospital. The trust has been taking steps to improve the experience of oncology patients at North Middlesex hospital through efforts to reduce waiting times and speed up the pathway for them. Those steps include the creation of the same-day emergency care hub and the emergency ambulatory care unit, which provide a safer and more appropriate environment for patients, away from the emergency department.

Despite those measures, North Middlesex hospital has not been provided with the necessary resources for the triage of patients who require isolation. The trust proposes an initiative to establish an oncology assessment unit for patients who require minimal intervention, to bypass the emergency department, but this has been prevented from progressing further, after some promising initial steps. This was due to there being no available funds in existing budgets and the lack of external funding to hire the additional specialist staff required to establish the oncology assessment unit.

The situation highlights the urgent need for targeted investment. Without dedicated support, the trust will not be able to guarantee the safer, specialist-led pathway for cancer patients that clinicians have repeatedly recommended. The experiences of Mr Thorn and my other constituents demonstrate the human impact of the gap in provision, and the response of the trust makes it clear that local efforts alone cannot solve the issue. If the Government are serious about putting cancer patients “front and centre”, as the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care has previously stated, they must do more to support stretched and under-resourced hospitals such as the North Middlesex, as well as its dedicated and hard-working staff—not only to protect the dignity and wellbeing of cancer patients, but to improve outcomes and survival rates.

I have three requests that I would like the Minister to consider. First, will the Department consider taking steps to ensure that North Middlesex hospital is granted the funding it needs to establish an oncology assessment unit, so that patients who experience treatment-related complications can be assessed properly in an appropriate environment, avoiding the risks associated with overcrowded emergency departments? Secondly, will the Minister consider carrying out a wider assessment of the safety and suitability of the settings in which immunocompromised oncology patients are placed when they are admitted to hospitals across the country, and how that may affect outcomes for cancer patients? Lastly, how will the proposals in the 10-year health plan for England on shifting from hospital to community care affect the experience of those suffering from cancer, to prevent them from having to attend A&E in the first place?

I pay tribute to Mrs Thorn for her tireless advocacy on this matter, with me and my office, with the North Middlesex hospital and with the wider Royal Free London foundation trust, to push for improvements in oncology care following the death of her husband Mr Jack Thorn. Her constant advocacy in the face of such devastating loss is truly commendable.

Ethnic Minority and Migrant Victims of Violence Against Women and Girls

Debate between Kate Osamor and Jim Shannon

Wednesday 5th July 2023 Westminster Hall

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I commend the hon. Lady for bringing forward the debate. I make my point with great sadness—the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Birmingham, Yardley (Jess Phillips), has a passion for the subject, and she knows this better than most—because, unfortunately, in Northern Ireland we have had some 42 murders of women over a five-year period. That is the highest rate in all Europe, second only to Romania, and it tells me that in Northern Ireland the murder of women and disrespect for women are at higher levels than almost anywhere else. That grieves me greatly.

We always look to the Minister for a positive response, which is what we seek from the debate and what the hon. Member for Edmonton (Kate Osamor) is rightly asking for. When it comes to having better services in place, it is important that the Minister corresponds with the Minister responsible in the Northern Ireland Assembly to ensure that protection for women across this great United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland is improved, especially in Northern Ireland.

[Kate Osamor]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for that important and powerful intervention. Unfortunately, violence against women does not discriminate: it can happen anywhere. I hope the Minister will take on board the shocking numbers that the hon. Gentleman just relayed.

DWP Risk Review Team

Debate between Kate Osamor and Jim Shannon

Wednesday 26th January 2022 Westminster Hall

[Kate Osamor (Edmonton) (Lab/Co-op)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered the Department for Work and Pensions’ Risk Review Team.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Twigg. Today, I will talk about the Department for Work and Pensions risk review team, which was set up in May 2020. The DWP states that the team’s role is to

“review and take action on cases identified”

by the integrated risk and intelligence service as being “a high fraud risk.”

I was first alerted to the team’s existence in October 2021, when my constituency office began to receive contact from what would become a total of 29 constituents who had had their universal credit payments suspended indefinitely under almost identical circumstances. Those constituents are all Bulgarian nationals and tend to have either settled status or pre-settled status. Time and again, my office was told that the cases were under the management of the risk review team, with little to no further explanation of the reason, apart from some claims of suspicion of fraud. Constituents told me that their claims were suspended for months on end—as long as 11 months, in the worst case. Although that particular constituent’s claim has now been restored, they have received no compensation for the hardship caused.

The DWP provides no timeframe for the completion of the reviews, nor a right of appeal. A significant number of those constituents are single mothers who work part time. This situation has left them in a completely crippling financial position and pushed many into serious destitution—relying on food banks, facing eviction from their homes and racking up serious amounts of debt. One constituent, whom I will call Maria, is a constituent of mine only after she lost her home in Liverpool as a result of having her benefits suspended, and subsequently moved to Edmonton.

From the cases my office has been handling, a number of constituents have since had their universal credit payments restored and backdated, as there was no evidence of any wrongdoing.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I congratulate the hon. Lady on securing this debate. I have constituents coming regularly into my office—you probably do as well, Mr Twigg—asking for help on this matter, although they may not be Bulgarian. Those constituents say that the DWP has asked them for information. I always ask, “Well, have you got that information?” to which they reply, “We are not quite sure.” Does the hon. Lady think that when an application is refused, whatever the reasons may be, the Department should make officers and staff available to help that person to get the right information and respond? The people she mentioned had their benefits restored, but they would not have had to wait had it been done right the first time around.

Children Act 1989: Local Authority Responsibilities

Debate between Kate Osamor and Jim Shannon

Tuesday 19th March 2019 Commons Chamber

[Kate Osamor (Edmonton) (Lab/Co-op)]

I am grateful for the opportunity to raise this pertinent issue. The “no recourse to public funds” condition applies to people who have arrived in the UK in a range of immigration categories, including students and workers and their spouses, who may have the right to work but not to access benefits. There is considerable confusion over what services people with no recourse to public funds are entitled to, which has led to terrible suffering for both adults and children, including many British-born children, who fall through the net of Home Office and local government support.

It was interesting that I was met with departmental confusion simply in trying to secure this debate. Over the past few days, the Department for Education, the Home Office and the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government were each in turn named as the Department that would to respond to this debate, and I fear that that speaks to the profound confusion around accountability—namely, which body or institution is responsible for assisting those who have no recourse to public funds.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

The hon. Lady has secured an important Adjournment debate. Does she agree that the biggest duty of care we owe is to children who rely solely on the state to look after them? All local authorities must understand that that duty includes considering historical cases to ascertain the safety of children in foster care. More than just the bare minimum, that duty means taking responsibility for the welfare of a child who has no one else in their corner, and it is essential that all local authorities understand that. I congratulate the hon. Lady on bringing this important matter forward for debate. Let us get it right.

[Kate Osamor]

I thank the hon. Gentleman, who makes a valuable point. I will go on to express similar concerns around the responsibility for looking after such children and the fact that many children have been and are being failed.

Local authorities, in practice, and the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government, on a strategic level, need to get a better grip on the issue and take responsibility for the people affected. The picture is currently bleak, but the legislation is very clear. Section 17 of the Children Act 1989 provides a general duty on local authorities to safeguard and promote the welfare of all children in need in their local area. This means that local authorities must do whatever possible to ensure sufficient services and measures are in place where a child’s health or development is not being achieved or maintained, or where it is being diminished.

This support is not considered a public fund and includes accommodation, subsistence and help for children with additional needs, such as a disability. For many destitute migrant families, section 17 support is their only opportunity to feed themselves and put a roof over their head. One of the last comprehensive national studies of children from families with no recourse to public funds receiving section 17 support was in 2015, when an estimated 6,000 children were receiving such support.

I tabled a written question on 12 December 2018 asking the Home Office whether it had any up-to-date data on children in need with no recourse to public funds, based on applications showing a change in their parents’ circumstances. I received a response from the Minister for Immigration on 20 December stating that no ideal data was being held “entitled ‘Change of Conditions’.” I used that wording in my question, and maybe it is not correct, but I was trying to ascertain the data for people whose circumstances have changed. I was told:

“Answering this question would require manual inspection of all family and private life leave to remain applications within the date range. This would incur disproportionate cost to the public purse.”

When we are talking about the livelihoods of young children, I would hope the public purse could extend to ensuring that we are looking after those children.