Families call for independent Mid Ulster cancer cluster investigation
Families say they pressed for answers because children and young people were being diagnosed with cancer, while internal Department communications appeared focused on political and presentational damage to the Minister
Families affected by childhood and young adult cancers in Mid Ulster are today calling for an independently led Stage 1 cancer cluster investigation.
The families say internal Department of Health communications released under Freedom of Information raise serious questions about what officials knew privately, what was said publicly, and why no corrective action was taken.
The documents show senior officials, including the Health Minister’s Special Adviser, were aware of the difficulty in reassuring families using historical cancer data ending in 2022, despite concerns centring on cancers diagnosed from mid-2023 onwards.
In one internal exchange, the Health Minister’s Special Adviser warned that this approach was “not going to cut it”.
Families say that if these reports did not cut it for the Health Minister’s own adviser, they should never have been expected to cut it for parents whose children were ill.
Families say the difference is clear: families pressed for answers because children and young people were being diagnosed with cancer, while internal Department communications appeared focused on political and presentational damage to the Minister.
Hugh McCloy, whose daughter Freda underwent treatment for leukaemia, said: “When I met the PHA in September 2025, Dr Cromie asked me what my motivation was for raising the alarm. My motivation was my child, and other children and young people in this area getting cancer. The question now is: what was the motivation for reassuring families using the wrong years, broad averages and no proper environmental testing?”
“Parents of children with cancer notice things because they have to. It is how we protect our children. When parents notice children from the same communities getting cancer, the first question from public health should not be ‘what is your motivation?’ It should be: ‘we will follow the protocols and check this properly.’
“The most disturbing part is not simply the use of old data. It is that people inside the system appear to have understood the problem, yet families were still publicly reassured using years that did not cover the period of concern. If these reports were not going to cut it for the Minister’s own adviser, why were families supposed to accept them?”
Families stress this is not about claiming a cause for cancers. They say it is about ensuring the correct public health and epidemiological process is followed. The concerns involve multiple cancer types reported by families across the wider Mid Ulster area, including leukaemia, lymphoma, brain tumours and Ewing sarcoma.
“When I first raised the alarm, I also raised concerns about adult cancers across parts of Mid Ulster, including around Slieve Gallion, Maghera and the Lough Shore. Those concerns were effectively ignored. There appeared to be no interest in properly scoping them, because once you widen the lens geographically and across age groups, the questions become much bigger. That is part of why families feel the issue was diluted instead of properly investigated.”
Families point to the fact that historical Mid Ulster/Sperrin data identified approximately six cases of childhood leukaemia over a seven-year period in under 24 year olds. However, families say they became aware of at least six further reported leukaemia cases in less than two years from mid-2023 onwards in the same age bracket. Information was provided by the Northern Ireland Cancer Registry. They argue this should have automatically triggered a full Stage 1 cluster assessment using the correct years, geography and wider cancer scope.
Families say established cancer cluster protocols exist for a reason: to protect the public, protect confidence in government, and protect businesses and communities from speculation by ensuring concerns are assessed properly, fairly and transparently.
But to date, families say the Public Health Agency has not demonstrated that it followed those protocols. Families say the process has not clearly shown that the correct period of concern was assessed; that the correct local geography was used; that all relevant cancers and age groups were scoped; that families’ reported cases were properly gathered and tested; that environmental exposure pathways were meaningfully considered; and that provisional or near-real-time health data were used to assess recent concerns.
“These protocols exist to protect everyone — the public, government and businesses. But the Public Health Agency cannot demonstrate that it followed them. That is why this now needs to be independent.
“Parents asked for answers about reports involving their children. They were met with national security arguments, Section 36 restrictions, and then the ultimate insult — being labelled vexatious by the Public Health Agency under Section 14. That is not transparency. That is a public body hiding behind process while families are left fighting for basic answers.”
Families also say they are trying to understand what is happening within real communities, not simply within political boundaries.
“Cancer does not follow council lines, constituency lines or electoral boundaries. Those boundaries are for counting votes — not for understanding cancer or environmental exposure.”
Families say large geographical averaging risks diluting smaller localised patterns and may fail to identify important exposure pathways.
“If something is wrong environmentally, it will not stop neatly at a political boundary — and it will not stop at cancer either. Cancer may only be one warning sign. That is why proper epidemiology, environmental exposure studies and wider public health assessment are now urgently needed.”
One of the most serious contradictions, families say, is the Public Health Agency’s reassurance that there was “no new local risk” while major environmental change was visible across the wider area during the same years families were reporting cancers.
Families are not saying Lough Neagh caused these cancers. But they say it is impossible to understand how public health officials could rule out “new local risk” without proper environmental exposure work at a time when Lough Neagh was turning green with algal bloom on a scale visible from space.
“We are not saying Lough Neagh caused cancer. We are saying it turned green during the reported years - visible from space, but apparently not visible enough for the Public Health Agency to treat it as a serious environmental warning sign.
“The lake turned green in front of everyone. Families were reporting cancers. Yet the public were told there was no new local risk. That is not reassurance - that is a contradiction.”
Families say other identifiable monitoring gaps also exist across air, soil and water, and these will now be raised directly with government. They say the “no new local risk” line does not add up when parts of Northern Ireland have been waiting around 16 years for Review of Old Mineral Permissions protections to be implemented - protections intended to bring older mineral sites under modern environmental controls.
“You cannot tell families there is no new local risk while the environmental safety net itself is full of holes. Air, soil and water monitoring gaps exist, and communities have waited years for ROMPs to be implemented. That does not add up.
“No risk is not a finding when the monitoring was never done properly. It is just a slogan sitting on top of missing data.”
A spokesperson for the Public Health Agency said: “The Public Health Agency (PHA) was contacted by an individual who had concerns relating to childhood cancers in the Mid Ulster Parliamentary Constituency (PC). In line with standard practice, the PHA asked the Northern Ireland Cancer Registry (NICR) to undertake an assessment of children’s cancer rates in the area.
“To assess if the overall childhood cancer incidence rates in a specified area is higher or lower than expected, a measure called the standardised incidence ratio (SIR) is used.
“For the Mid Ulster PC this was conducted for the period 2018-2022 (the most recent five year period for which data have been fully validated). The SIR for childhood cancers in the area of investigation was found to be slightly below the Northern Ireland average at 96.3, with 95% confidence intervals of 57.9 (LCI) and 150.4 (UCI), meaning there is overlap with the Northern Ireland average and the difference is not significant.
“However, given the concerns raised in relation to childhood cancers in 2023, NICR also undertook an informal sensitivity analysis using provisional data. This covered the period 2018-2023 and found that the incidence of acute lymphoblastic leukaemia (ALL) in children 0-14 years in the Mid Ulster Parliamentary Constituency area was not significantly different compared with Northern Ireland overall.
“In addition to this, the PHA contacted the childhood cancer team at the Royal Belfast Hospital for Sick Children to discuss if they had any concerns in relation to childhood cancers rates in Northern Ireland or within the area, but no concerns were raised.
“Therefore, there was nothing found to indicate deviation from the number of expected cases in this area over the time period which was assessed.”