Role in the case
As Director of Corporate Affairs, Cross had responsibility for the Trust’s external communications, regulatory-relations management, and the media posture through the 2015-2016 cluster and the subsequent police investigation. Thirlwall Inquiry evidence documents the Trust’s communications strategy, the positioning of the RCPCH review externally, and the institutional posture through to the May 2017 police referral.
The institutional-reputation dimension
Analysts have identified the institutional-reputation-preservation dynamic as a recurring element in NHS serious-incident response, most familiar from the Morecambe Bay (Kirkup 2015) and Mid Staffordshire (Francis 2013) inquiries. The Cross role sits at the intersection of clinical-governance response and external-communications management, and Thirlwall evidence addresses the decisions made in that role.
The communications strategy during the RCPCH review period
When the executive team decided in autumn 2016 to commission the Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health service review rather than refer the matter to police, the Trust’s external communications posture became a live operational question. The RCPCH review was not confidential; the Trust was operating within a regulatory and media environment in which the elevated death rate on the neonatal unit was at some point likely to become public knowledge. Cross’s role as Director of Corporate Affairs placed him at the centre of decisions about how — and whether — to communicate proactively with regulators, commissioners, NHS England, and ultimately the press.
Thirlwall Inquiry coverage of the Trust’s communications approach identifies the period between the September 2016 consultant letter and the May 2017 police referral as the phase in which the institutional-reputation dimension of the response was most active. Whether the Trust’s communications decisions in that period were consistent with its safeguarding obligations, and whether any communications were shaped by a desire to manage reputational exposure, are questions within the Inquiry’s scope.
The regulatory-relations dimension
NHS Foundation Trusts have obligations to the Care Quality Commission, NHS England, and their commissioners to report serious incidents and unexpected mortality clusters. The Thirlwall Inquiry has examined the adequacy of COCH’s reporting to each of those bodies in the 2015-2017 period. As Corporate Affairs Director, Cross had a role in managing the Trust’s relationship with those regulators, and his evidence addresses when each body was informed of the elevated mortality, what they were told, and how the Trust framed its accounts externally. The Morecambe Bay parallel is instructive here: the Kirkup report identified regulatory-communication failures as a significant component of how a mortality cluster was sustained without intervention.
The lead-up to the May 2017 police referral
The decision in May 2017 to contact Cheshire Police came eight months after the September 2016 consultant letter and approximately two years after the cluster had been identified as anomalous by the clinical team. The Thirlwall Inquiry is examining the decision-making chain that led to that referral and why it was delayed. Cross’s position at the intersection of legal, communications, and board-governance functions meant he was likely informed of, if not party to, the discussions that preceded the referral decision. His Thirlwall evidence contributes to the factual picture of the internal deliberation in that period. See also the profiles of Tony Chambers and Ian Harvey for the parallel executive accounts.
Read alongside
- Tony Chambers — former CEO
- Ian Harvey — former Medical Director
- Analysis: Morecambe Bay parallel
- Analysis: Francis framework parallel
- Analysis: Trust post-conviction messaging
Source
Thirlwall Inquiry evidence bundles; contemporaneous UK broadsheet and regulatory-media coverage.