3. Mr Steve Rotheram

MR STEVE ROTHERAM (affirmed).

Questions From Counsel to the Inquiry

Ms Cecil: Thank you, Mr Rotheram.

Mr Rotheram, if you can keep your voice up, we also have a stenographer who is taking a note, effectively preparing a transcript of what you are saying, so if we can take things slowly. If I ask you to slow down, it’s my fault not yours, it’s just to ensure that an accurate note is taken. Again, if I ask you to repeat anything, that may well be why.

Similarly, if I ask a question and you’re not sure what I’m asking or you need clarification, just say. Okay?

So, Mr Rotheram, thank you again for assisting the Inquiry. You’ve also provide a witness statement. That witness statement is dated 17 August of this year. It runs to some 15 pages, and indeed at the outset what we see is a statement and declaration of truth. And if we turn to page 15, we’d ordinarily see your signature, but of course it’s redacted. Is that correct?

Mr Steve Rotheram: It’s correct.

Counsel Inquiry: Thank you.

Mr Rotheram, your evidence today is concerned with your role as Mayor of the London (sic) City Region; is that correct?

Mr Steve Rotheram: Liverpool City Region, yes.

Counsel Inquiry: Indeed – sorry, did I say London? I’m sorry, Liverpool City Region.

Mr Steve Rotheram: It’s better than London.

Counsel Inquiry: I’ve got Mr Khan’s evidence in my mind.

Lady Hallett: Oh, you may not be forgiven for that.

Ms Cecil: I know. I’m off to a bad start already, let’s hope it can only get better from here.

But just dealing then, perhaps, with your professional background, you were heavily involved in local politics initially, as a councillor. From there you became the Lord Mayor of Liverpool, in 2008-2009. You then were elected as the Member of Parliament for Liverpool Walton and occupied that role from 2010-2017. And then in 2017 you were the elected metro mayor of the Liverpool City Region, and indeed you were re-elected in 2021.

Mr Steve Rotheram: Correct.

Counsel Inquiry: So it’s fair to say that you’ve had perhaps a longstanding commitment but, moreover, knowledge of Liverpool and its surrounds.

I want to turn now, if I may, to the structure of the Liverpool City Region combined authority. That is a consequence of a devolution agreement that was signed with the government back in 2017. And it is composed of six local authorities, just to run through them very quickly, Halton, Knowsley, Liverpool, Sefton, St Helens and the Wirral. Is that right?

Mr Steve Rotheram: That’s correct.

Counsel Inquiry: Thank you. Now if I can just take you to paragraph 3 of your witness statement, this is on the screen here, that sets out the powers effectively that are conferred upon the London City – Liverpool City, I’m afraid, regional authority, and indeed the Mayor, those are: economic development, transport, housing, planning and employment and skills.

We’ve heard a little bit about this already earlier today but there’s one notable exception, isn’t there, in relation to the pandemic, and that’s health; is that right?

Mr Steve Rotheram: Indeed.

Counsel Inquiry: Indeed. Now, similarly, it’s not a Category 1 or Category 2 responder under Civil Contingencies Act and framework, but separately to that you are an active member of the Merseyside Resilience Forum. Can you just tell us a little bit about that, please.

Mr Steve Rotheram: Well, we have statutory responsibility for public transport, and obviously that’s an important role in regard to the Merseyside Resilience Forum, and therefore we have a seat on that. But as the metro mayor of the area, we don’t have any codified or statutory responsibilities, believe it or not, because the Civil Contingencies Act is 2004 and that would pre-date the metro mayors, which came in in 2017.

Counsel Inquiry: We’re going to turn to that in due course in relation to the structural relationships and potential deficits as you see them. But just dealing with that resilience forum, that oversees, effectively, the preparedness, response and recovery for major incidents within that region; is that right?

Mr Steve Rotheram: That’s correct.

Counsel Inquiry: Similarly, as a consequence of that, it also has responsibility in relation to financial distribution of money, effectively, in response to restrictions imposed upon the region. And that was true within the pandemic?

Mr Steve Rotheram: Yeah, both in regard to settlements with the government but also to passport funding as a conduit to local authorities.

Counsel Inquiry: Thank you. If I can then turn, please, to your role as Mayor, so your individual role, how would you describe that?

Mr Steve Rotheram: I’ve seen mayors today give evidence, and it’s very similar to what you’ve already heard. I believe that you need a single voice and there was never a more opportune time for devolution to work than through a pandemic, where you had a single point of contact and somebody who could liaise both with national government and, through regional structures, with local government.

Counsel Inquiry: Indeed, as you set out within your statement, also effectively working in the interests of the Liverpool City Region area?

Mr Steve Rotheram: Always in – with that at heart.

Counsel Inquiry: At the heart of what you do?

Mr Steve Rotheram: Indeed.

Counsel Inquiry: With regard to your responsibilities as Mayor during the Covid-19 pandemic, there was not a codified set of responsibilities with respect to your mayoral role was there?

Mr Steve Rotheram: That’s correct.

Counsel Inquiry: I think certainly within your statement you set out that there were three broad categories within which your responsibilities fell. The first of that was civic leadership and co-ordination, and how did you see that role?

Mr Steve Rotheram: Well, that was speaking up for our area but also working with other political partners of all different political persuasions to ensure that those voices were heard at central government. Central government may well be from a different political party than me but the real important issue is that we both did the right things for the 1.6 million people in the Liverpool City Region. And so I was very vocal at times to ensure that our voices were heard over the clamour, you can imagine, from other areas in the country.

Counsel Inquiry: Indeed. And you have referred to the 1.6 million. That’s residents, isn’t it, within the Liverpool City Region, and that rises to approximately 3 million people, including people working within the region; is that right?

Mr Steve Rotheram: The functional economic geography is a little bit more than that, we think about 3.2 million.

Counsel Inquiry: About 3.2 million, thank you.

The second of those roles and responsibilities is facilitating funding. We touched on that briefly with regard to the broader structure, but just dealing with that, that deals with the city region and for the benefit of local residents and businesses.

Mr Steve Rotheram: It does.

Counsel Inquiry: It has two sides to it in that respect, those who live there but also the business and economic activity within the area and the region.

Mr Steve Rotheram: Yeah, there’s money from central government, but also, of course, we have different sources of our own funding, and all of that is to ensure that we get the flexibility to spend the money the way we believe it should be spent in our city region.

Counsel Inquiry: Effectively targeting where you feel it’s needed most?

Mr Steve Rotheram: Yes, but some – we get passported money. In other words, it’s hypothecated to the city region and is ring-fenced for certain issues that we have no flexibilities within.

Counsel Inquiry: Of course. Then finally, you describe your third set of responsibilities as sustaining services, and if you can just tell us a little bit about that very briefly.

Mr Steve Rotheram: Public transport is probably the main one. And even throughout the pandemic, of course, public transport never stopped, and so that’s why it was important that we had that voice in the Merseyside Resilience Forum, but without having the statutory responsibility to be there we were all too often reliant on the people who represented the combined authority on that forum to come back and to inform us of things that were happening, plus the goodwill of people like the Police and Crime Commissioner and the Chief Constable at the time, which was Andy Cooke.

Counsel Inquiry: Thank you. I will be putting public transport to one side. It’s fair to say that various accommodations were made by you in your role throughout the pandemic, including free transport for key workers, those sorts of accommodations, and then also, of course, you were trying to deal with the deficit from individuals not utilising public transport during that time and the revenues that that would incur; is that right?

Mr Steve Rotheram: One of the benefits of devolution is that we can take those decisions locally, and we decided that there were charges against key workers and essential worker and we wanted to ease that burden during the height of the pandemic because they were the only people using public transport and yet we were charging them to use that public transport. So we tried to reduce the burden.

Counsel Inquiry: And then, if I may just turn to another area in which there was no authority and that relates to the regulations and the Covid legislation, and you played no rule within those, developing those?

Mr Steve Rotheram: No role nationally but not even consulted locally.

Counsel Inquiry: I’m going to move to consultation in just one moment in relation to both the Liverpool City Region and Westminster.

Certainly in relation to that if I can just take you back to the initial stages then of the pandemic. Was there any engagement from central government through the months of January, February and up to the lockdown?

Mr Steve Rotheram: No. And people might remember that actually the people who came to isolate and to go to Arrowe Park Hospital from being to Wuhan, they came through many areas and ended up in the Liverpool City Region, and we weren’t even informed that these people were going to travel through our area or end up in a hospital environment being isolated.

Counsel Inquiry: So just before I turn to that, that’s in early February of 2020, were you aware in January or prior to that of the issues in terms of the pandemic and Covid-19 with respect to the UK in terms of communication from central government?

Mr Steve Rotheram: I believe that was 31 January when the quarantine happened. And obviously we were all aware, weren’t we, as citizens of the world, that something significant was happening at that stage. Some people believed that it could be contained and not end up as a pandemic.

Counsel Inquiry: So when individuals were repatriated from Wuhan and sent to Arrowe Park in the Wirral, when did you first find out about that?

Mr Steve Rotheram: On the news.

Counsel Inquiry: What did you do in response to that? Did you try to make any communication with Westminster?

Mr Steve Rotheram: Well, first of all we contacted Wirral Council because they were the local authority in which Arrowe Park Hospital is located, and they had had no notifications in advance, and that seemed to be the way in which things were conducted early on.

Counsel Inquiry: Did that continue, as we moved through the March period into lockdown, again were you consulted at any point or was that information – or communication made with you or your team?

Mr Steve Rotheram: No, there was nothing in particular. Obviously there was back channels and informal conversations about what potentially might happen, but in – within the combined authority we would sit around that – you know, 5 to 6 waiting for the evening news way to see whether there was going to be an announcement at 6 o’clock that we would be locked down. And that happened for week after week. And of course we all know when the announcement happened, but right up until the day of the announcement by the Prime Minister there was no conversations at all locally.

Counsel Inquiry: Okay. So as we were approaching the lockdown, and from February onwards, did you begin to make your own preparations?

Mr Steve Rotheram: Well, we did in as much as that we started to think about what the group of people that we would need to pull together would look like, and I think in – March was our first Covid action group, and that was, you know, MPs, the local police and all the relevant agencies all coming together, so that we had a forum that we could all share information in, outside, of course, the statutory responsibility of the Civil Contingencies Act.

Counsel Inquiry: Was that prior to lockdown or post lockdown?

Mr Steve Rotheram: It was the – our first meeting was on the 20th, which is the Friday before lockdown, so the planning of that must have been weeks before.

Counsel Inquiry: Indeed. In your statement you describe also engaging with the local NHS directors of public health from February, effectively, onwards; is that right?

Mr Steve Rotheram: Yeah, and one of the problems that we had is that – again, that was predicated on the goodwill of people who were leading local authority areas, for me to have access to their directors of public of health and not a statutory responsibility.

Counsel Inquiry: Again, going back to that potential lacuna that you identified at the outset.

Mr Steve Rotheram: Absolutely.

Counsel Inquiry: Now, as the pandemic progressed and post lockdown, did things improve to any degree, in terms of communications with the government?

Mr Steve Rotheram: When are we talking about here, what month?

Counsel Inquiry: Effectively post lockdown, from that March, April, May period.

Mr Steve Rotheram: Yes, there was some informal communications but there were no official channels for us to raise any particular issues and it was much later on that we started to get the access to the secretaries of state and senior misters in the government that we needed to – so we could find out the information necessary to put appropriate measures into what was happening locally.

Counsel Inquiry: Indeed, we’ve heard a little bit earlier this afternoon about attempts to engage with Westminster and to attend COBR. Were you part of those attempts?

Mr Steve Rotheram: Yeah, we – well, we believed as a group – it was the – called the M9 at the time, there were nine metro mayors, and I think it was four Tories, five Labour, so it was pretty balanced, and we believed that there should be representation from that group at COBR. We hadn’t decided who that might be but we did believe that our voices should be heard because of the enormity of the population that those nine people had – represented.

Counsel Inquiry: With regard to that nine group, the group of metro mayors, did there ever come a point where you were represented essentially by one individual in that way?

Mr Steve Rotheram: No, I don’t believe so.

Counsel Inquiry: Indeed, you did not attend COBR, save for one exception, which we’ll move to later in the chronology, in October of 2020?

Mr Steve Rotheram: Yes, that’s correct.

Counsel Inquiry: We’ve heard evidence earlier that you and Andy Burnham issued joint statements asking government to widen membership to also include mayors from the north-west. Did you ever get a response to that?

Mr Steve Rotheram: No, I don’t believe we did?

Counsel Inquiry: Turning, as we go, again, through the chronology and into the summer, and looking at engagement, a number of NPIs were relaxed as coming out of lockdown initially but then also Eat Out to Help Out was announced. Did you have any advance notice of either those relaxations or the scheme?

Mr Steve Rotheram: We had no notification whatsoever. So that came as a real bolt out the blue.

Counsel Inquiry: So were you finding out as the public found out?

Mr Steve Rotheram: Yeah, on nearly every major announcement we were watching the telly and – and we work late anyway in our office, so we were staying until stupid hour watching what was happening on the news so that we could then start to formulate our response to that for the next day.

Counsel Inquiry: Did that present any challenges for you?

Mr Steve Rotheram: Consistently.

Counsel Inquiry: What challenges were they?

Mr Steve Rotheram: Well, that we were reacting rather than proactively working in engagement with central government to formulate some of those policies.

Counsel Inquiry: Did that cause any difficulties with your constituency base?

Mr Steve Rotheram: Often, especially on messaging, and we desperately needed a single voice and some coherence around that message, and that was often lost because things were quite fluid and changed quite often and things would flip-flop one way and then a different way and a different occasion. So it was much more difficult to take people with you.

Counsel Inquiry: We’re going to deal with some of those challenges later when it comes to looking at tiers, but were there also any logistical challenges for the authority?

Mr Steve Rotheram: Yeah. There was – I’ll give you an example. Both the Mayor of London, Sadiq Khan, and myself were asking I think in the April around face coverings. and I wanted the government to introduce this and I wanted to do it locally.. And believe it or not I would have had to change the bylaws locally and get that through the legislative process to do that before we could enforce face coverings.

So there were lots of things that happened where if it had have come from central government that would have alleviated the local problems that we were facing.

Counsel Inquiry: We’ve heard a little bit already this morning about that issue and engagement on that issue, so I’m going to leave that there, but mainly because we’ve got other points to cover this afternoon.

But dealing then, if I may – so that’s public communications and messaging. I’m going to now come to, the tiers, and that takes us somewhat ahead, following Eat Out to Help Out, the summer time, and then effectively moving through September and into October.

Now, in October, is it correct there were rising infection rates in the north-west and in particular within the Liverpool region?

Mr Steve Rotheram: There were across the north-west but specifically in the Liverpool City Region, and one of our areas was the third highest R rate in Europe.

Counsel Inquiry: So you had one of the – the third highest R rates in Europe. In terms of the situation with regard to the NHS and hospitals, how did that present itself in the Liverpool City Region?

Mr Steve Rotheram: Well, by now we were having regular conversations and meetings with the directors of public health, with our NHS representatives and with the scientists, and the – around mid-October we were getting genuinely concerned that the NHS didn’t have the capacity if the R rates had have continued and the numbers of people who were presenting with infections in hospital, then there would have been no capacity at all within the Merseyside area for anybody presenting with any other condition that was non-Covid. So we were literally at capacity and worried that it might tip over.

Counsel Inquiry: The Inquiry has heard some evidence about the development of the tier structure in response to concerns such as the rising R rate and infection numbers within Liverpool. When did you find out about the potential for tiering?

Mr Steve Rotheram: So we’ve had some conversations with the Secretary of State, Matt Hancock, early in October, I think it was the 5th, and within that we’d – he’d said there might be the need for some additional restrictions, and I think tiering might have been mooted, certainly no detail on that, and what we were very concerned with at that same time was that the government had also floated the idea that furlough would be reduced from 80 per cent to 67 per cent, and so that was the main topic of conversation from my perspective because I was 100 per cent opposed to any reduction, because that would have hit our area harder than anywhere in the country.

Counsel Inquiry: Indeed. Presumably you’ve been listening to the evidence immediately before you from Andy Burnham in relation to furlough. I’m not going to go back over that now, save as to say you are on the same page as him, presumably?

Mr Steve Rotheram: I didn’t hear it all and the connectivity is not brilliant, so it cut out, but generally we do speak with one voice, myself and the Mayor of Greater Manchester, because we were communicating on a regular basis, a daily basis, during that terrible period.

Counsel Inquiry: In terms of Tier 1, Tier 2 and Tier 3, and potential Tier 3 restrictions for the Liverpool City Region, when did you first hear about that?

Mr Steve Rotheram: So we had a meeting with the Chief Medical Officer on 9 October, I think that was the Friday, and within that he outlined the concerning situation across the Liverpool City Region with the R rate but with the NHS, and it was understood that something needed to happen, specifically in our geography, because we – we were genuinely concerned that we wouldn’t have any additional capacity. So that was the first time that that sort of thing had been discussed.

He showed us all of the scientific evidence, so put charts on the screen. It was along with all the leaders in the Liverpool City Region, so the six local authority council leaders. So we basically knew we had to do something, collectively.

Counsel Inquiry: In terms of doing something collectively, at that point was it envisaged that it would be a tiered system, with increasing levels of restrictions, or were you looking at something different?

Mr Steve Rotheram: I think that came on the Saturday, the actual – you know, “We need to discuss about this new thing, Tier 3”. We started to talk about what that might look like and what the additional restrictions would be, whether it would be an a la carte menu or whether it would be a prescriptive list of things that we had to do. And of course then on if we did enter into Tier 3, because at that stage nobody had, if we were first entrants, what any financial support package would look like, because obviously that would mean, with another local lockdown, that businesses would be constrained, and we were very, very adamant that businesses shouldn’t be detrimentally impacted.

Counsel Inquiry: So were financial considerations a concern for you at that point?

Mr Steve Rotheram: Massive.

Counsel Inquiry: Now, in terms of discussion with the government, from 9 to 11 October – spans a weekend in short?

Mr Steve Rotheram: Yes.

Counsel Inquiry: You were involved in a number of discussions, negotiations, is that right, in relation to the measures that would be taken within the region but also the financial package that would come alongside it?

Mr Steve Rotheram: Yes, with all sorts of people within Number 10 and secretaries of state and scientists and Uncle Tom Cobley and all to tell you the truth. But we were – we really wanted to understand the science and whether the list that eventually emerged would do the job, whether that would tackle some of the problems that were previously identified.

Counsel Inquiry: Just to be clear, those discussions and negotiations involved the Prime Minister and Edward Lister, who we have heard from previously, Robert Jenrick, another Member of Parliament, and other individuals?

Mr Steve Rotheram: Very much around that list, to tell you the truth. The others were peripheral. Ed Lister was central to this and he was the one that constantly we had conversations with and Zoom and Teams calls, and was somebody who would pick up the phone to me during the negotiations and inform me of what the thought of the Prime Minister were.

Counsel Inquiry: Indeed. And we know from other evidence that he was dealing not only with you but some of the other areas as well with other mayors as we’ve heard today and indeed earlier in the Inquiry.

Mr Steve Rotheram: Yeah.

Counsel Inquiry: With regard to those negotiations and the debate, did you reach a consensus or effectively an agreement, and at what point?

Mr Steve Rotheram: Well, we were certainly in dialogue right up until Sunday early evening, and then we sort of had adjourned that and we were going to pick this up the next day, on Monday the 12th, and there was a front page of The Times Online that came out that evening and that basically identified that was a fait accompli and we were going into Tier 3 whether we liked it or not. But we still thought that we were negotiating a deal.

Counsel Inquiry: So did that come as a surprise to you, that announcement, in terms of the paper article?

Mr Steve Rotheram: Yeah. We were certainly moving towards the same conclusion, but to have the rug pulled under our feet – because we were very concerned at the messaging to the people in the Liverpool City Region. We – at this same time we had Andy Burnham in Greater Manchester who was trying to push back against the government who’d not supported Greater Manchester for weeks and weeks and weeks when they had been in the highest tier. So for that to be seen that Manchester were opposing something but we were almost voluntarily, as people would have seen it, moving into the highest tier, I thought could be problematic, and certainly that’s how it panned out.

Counsel Inquiry: Indeed. I’m going to move to that in a moment. I just want to deal with the remainder of the 12 October first, if I may.

You attended – that’s when you attended the first and only COBR meeting, is that right.

And if I can just call that up, please. Thank you.

Here we see the minutes of that. We can see it was held on Monday 12 October at 10.30 in the morning. A large number of attendees, Prime Minister sitting in the chair of the meeting. If we go over the page we see further attendees that were present. And over again, it’s a very long list, I’m afraid, and you’re on, I think, this page, and we can see you on the right-hand side, third up from the bottom, as attending.

With regard to that, if I can go to page 5, please, and paragraph 1 of that, initially it opens with the Prime Minister welcoming everybody and thanking you for being in attendance that day, gives an update on the situation, the R rate was between 1.2 and 1.5 and pinpointed various areas where transmission was of particular concern, Nottingham, Londonderry/Derry. Said a full lockdown would interrupt education again, would be very economically damaging. Alternate option, letting disease spread would result in many thousands dying prematurely. A middle-ground course of action led locally was required to reduce transmissions of Covid-19 and its success critically depended upon the co-operation of the public. And here we see the chair, the Prime Minister, acknowledged a package of support developed by Merseyside to reduce infections within Liverpool.

So that’s the opening, in short, to the meeting, is that right? That’s the context?

Mr Steve Rotheram: Yeah. And the most important line in all that is that it says its success was critically dependent upon the co-operation of the public. I think that needs to be borne in mind for what we come on to.

Counsel Inquiry: Public messaging?

Mr Steve Rotheram: Indeed.

Counsel Inquiry: Indeed.

If I just continue onward, please, to paragraph 2, we see an update from the Chief Medical Officer, and this is specific to your area effectively. He said:

“… the rates of COVID-19 amongst the over 60 years old, particularly within Merseyside, were going up and would result in increased hospitalisations and deaths … COVID-19 was displacing other health conditions which was increasing the burden of disease amongst non-COVID-19 conditions.”

A theme that we have already heard evidence on.

It continues, and this is the Chief Medical Officer’s view, Professor Sir Chris Whitty:

“… concluded that implementing baseline ‘Tier Three’ restrictions would not reduce the R-rate to below 1 and compliance with more stringent measures would be required to successfully reduce the virus.”

It then continues through the meeting, come back to some scientific advice momentarily, and we go through to your update.

It’s on page 6, please, and it’s paragraph 9.

You’ve been asked for your views on the potential measures in terms of local measures. It says:

“… the overall goal was to reduce infection rates and relieve pressure upon hospital beds.”

That’s what we were just referring to earlier.

“Measures to reduce infection included improved local capacity to use Test and Trace data. Enforcement remained a challenge for local authorities and that simplified legislation would support [that]. He concluded that … hospitality … would be impacted greatly by the new measures and asked that further consideration was given to how to support these workers.”

Did you go into detail in relation to any further support within this meeting with the Prime Minister?

Mr Steve Rotheram: Yeah, I said that it was an absolute red line for us to still at that late stage enter into any deal with national government that would see a reduction of furlough from 80 per cent to 67 per cent, and I think that’s what that’s referring to, slightly coded. But it was the people, the workers is in the city region who we were trying to protect at this stage. And of course it also mentions test and trace data. That was something that we had longed for, for – and I think – this is the bit that I did hear, Andy was explaining it wasn’t until, I think it was, Nadhim Zahawi was appointed that we started to get access to some of that data, but that data should have been ours as a right.

Counsel Inquiry: Indeed.

Just continuing, if I may, just to focus on this meeting at the present time, you have raised the issues of furlough, you’ve raised the issues of financial package. At this point there had been no deal, had there? It was still being negotiated?

Mr Steve Rotheram: Nothing absolutely concluded but we were very much moving towards that. And just so that we have a full picture of this, there are people who spoke later and the leaders – so Nicola Sturgeon, Mark Drakeford, and Arlene spoke later – Foster – and they all said that they had supported my red line, which was no reduction in furlough.

Counsel Inquiry: Now, moving on through and just dealing with the other advice that was provided in relation to the tier system of which you were concerned, or why you were there that day, if I can go to page 8, please, and paragraph 18, what we have here is:

“The [Government Chief Scientific Adviser] …”

So Professor Sir Patrick Vallance.

“… [explained] that the impact of lockdowns and the impact of doing nothing were known, but the impacts of interventions between them was not known.”

And it continues:

“However, while the granularity of effects were not yet know, it was clear a baseline Tier Three approach would not reduce the R rate to an acceptable level. A circuit-breaker approach, a hard period of intervention for a limited time period, such as 3 weeks, was an option that SAGE had considered, it could reduce this R rate to below 1 and would allow for a period of reduced infections to follow. He concluded another positive of the circuit breakers was that they could be planned for but that final decisions would be dependent upon strategic aims.”

Were circuit breakers discussed at this meeting that you were present at at COBR?

Mr Steve Rotheram: Not just at this meeting but it was something that the metro mayors had called for for some considerable time in the build-up to all of this, because we understood that whilst we had to do stuff to control things within our own geography, there’s a bleed between geographies, people don’t stick rigidly to those administrative boundaries, so within the (unclear) of the Liverpool City Region, every single day people flow in and out of it and we knew that it was much more difficult to do it in one area but we had to try something. And by the way what we did was demonstrably successful, because despite – that’s a generalised statement, isn’t it, but within the Liverpool City Region we did see a fall over those three weeks, even with a Tier 3 approach.

Counsel Inquiry: Of course it was then – Tier 3 then moved into the national lockdown?

Mr Steve Rotheram: Exactly the point, yeah, but we’d already started to go in the right direction.

Counsel Inquiry: The infections started to decrease?

Mr Steve Rotheram: Yes.

Counsel Inquiry: At that point was your view that Liverpool City Region ought to enter into a tier system or that there ought to have been a circuit-breaker?

Mr Steve Rotheram: I think it was an inevitability that we were going to into Tier 3, given The Times headline. What I was most concerned about was the messaging, and I pointed out earlier, if you don’t take the public with you, it doesn’t matter what those restrictions might have looked like and the arguments for or against it, it had to be communicated correctly to the people in the Liverpool City Region, and I wasn’t afforded that opportunity.

Counsel Inquiry: Just going to that and not being afforded that opportunity, after this COBR agreement was reached and finalised and at that point is it right that you had a phone call with the Prime Minister?

Mr Steve Rotheram: Yeah.

Counsel Inquiry: What was discussed in that phone call with the Prime Minister?

Mr Steve Rotheram: Well, exactly the whole scenario about how we would communicate to ensure that there was compliance as widely as possible. And I very much emphasised the fact that a Tory Prime Minister in an area like the Liverpool City Region might not be the best person to be communicating this, and so therefore there should be a joint comms strategy on this and we needed to get the messaging absolutely nailed down, and he agreed to that. So I had my team ready and was expecting a phone call from Number 10’s team so that we could agree some wording on what that would look like, but unfortunately that wasn’t the case.

Counsel Inquiry: Indeed. Later that afternoon it was announced by the Prime Minister that Liverpool City Region was entering Tier 3, is that right, and then subsequently in a Number 10 press conference that evening?

Mr Steve Rotheram: It – on both of those occasions, yeah, without any notification to me, and then we had to try to pick up the pieces.

Counsel Inquiry: What were the consequences of that in terms of implementing Tier 3 within the Liverpool City Region?

Mr Steve Rotheram: At this stage we were the first, as I say, but Manchester, because of their extended restrictions period, were still trying to get a deal, so it looked as if we were doing a deal but we hadn’t had those same restrictions prior to Tier 3, and people didn’t understand that outside. It was a confusion of who was saying what and why would Manchester not accept the deal and we would accept the deal. And as I’ve explained, for all the right reasons we wanted to ensure that we could reduce the R rate but also the deaths, because as the R rate increased the death rate did and we were really cognisant of the fact that far too many people had already succumbed and we needed to do everything we possibly could.

What happened was as soon as the Prime Minister stood up in the House of Commons, Twitter literally blew up. And my team who, you know, tried to manage the social media side of things just said, “There’s thousands”. And that resulted in all sorts of threats and unintended consequence, I’m sure.

Counsel Inquiry: When you say “threats”, do you mean threats to you or to your team?

Mr Steve Rotheram: I think probably to me more than the team, but there were direct threats, and that resulted in the Chief Constable having to post 24-hour security.

And I’m not sure that when the Prime Minister broke that agreement with me that in any way he thought that might have been a consequence, but that’s why I was so clear in what we needed to do to prevent those sorts of eventualities.

Counsel Inquiry: Now, with regard to public compliance, the Liverpool City Region did go into Tier 3 the following day.

Mr Steve Rotheram: Yes.

Counsel Inquiry: On 13 October. It remained in Tier 3 up until the national lockdown, the second lockdown, came into force, but initially it was to last for four weeks with a sunset clause; is that right?

Mr Steve Rotheram: It was, and we got a financial package through to support that. But the issue wasn’t the four weeks, the issue was the additional restrictions, because we agreed the package and I was told it was a prescriptive package, and then Lancashire went into Tier 3 and their restrictions were different than ours and that caused, again, a hiatus and some problems.

Counsel Inquiry: Indeed. And within your witness statement you set out the correspondence that you subsequently had in relation to that package, financial arrangements and so on, mostly outside of the scope of this particular module but of course the information is there so I don’t propose to take you further through that.

With regard to that aspect I just want to touch now, if I may, on one other issue and that is, firstly, in terms of the lobbying.

You lobbied the government on various issues, one being access to PPE.

Mr Steve Rotheram: Mm-hm.

Counsel Inquiry: You’ve already mentioned face coverings. A third being the financial support that you’ve touched upon already, and indeed we’ve heard evidence earlier today, and there will be some questions on that in due course so I’m not going to deal with that in any great detail now but simply in relation to potential financial support packages to enable individuals to self-isolate. That was your concern in relation to the test and trace programme; is that right?

Mr Steve Rotheram: This was fundamental really to why I believe that the R rate had spiked, because there were far too many people – certainly low paid jobs in the Liverpool City Region where them people were faced with the sword of Damocles decision, and that was if they felt that they had symptoms they were choosing whether to stay home and get no pounds, no pence, or to take the chance that they didn’t have Covid and go to work, and I think that it was an intolerable position to put anybody in.

We explained this time and time again to government, that they needed to support us because we needed to have a package to support those workers so that if they felt that there may have been Covid symptoms that they erred on the side of caution and stayed at home.

Counsel Inquiry: Indeed, and you launched a Time Out to Help Out campaign, a play on Eat Out to Help Out campaign, in terms of words?

Mr Steve Rotheram: Yes.

Counsel Inquiry: Again, you will be asked some questions about that. The other aspect that I wish to touch on very briefly is one particular event that took place that outset of the pandemic on 11 March. Again, you are going to be asked some questions about that but it’s the Liverpool match, the Champions League match versus Atletico Madrid that took place, the background to that being that public health concerns were growing, as you’ve explained.

With regard to that time what you say about that is that it was not clear at this stage if the government was seeking to take a herd immunity approach or was simply waiting to the last minute to implement a national lockdown.

That’s in relation to the timing of this particular football match that was being played. Why did you consider herd immunity to be a real possibility at that stage?

Mr Steve Rotheram: Because the government didn’t seem to have any strategy to tackling the pandemic and it appeared that they were just allowing things to happen. Herd immunity – look, I’m not a scientist, I hadn’t heard of herd immunity beforehand. This was something that we were reading about and learning about and worried about, but we do know, don’t we, from evidence to this Inquiry that there were allegations against the Prime Minister about piling up the bodies, and that’s how it felt. I was on the front line of this, if you like. It felt as if they were just going to allow it to let rip, and that was a major concern for all of us.

Counsel Inquiry: Thank you.

I’m going to leave the questions about involvement in decision-making in relation to that match to others but if I may just ask you, finally now, in terms of lessons to be learned for the future and recommendations, a few questions in relation to the structural aspects concerning the role that you played the Mayor and the devolution agreements and the role of regional authorities essentially within the any civil emergencies response.

You have already explained that the Liverpool City Region combined authority is not a category 1 responder under the Civil Contingencies Act. We have also heard that London is. To what extent do you consider that lack of status as a Category 1 responder made a difference to your ability to co-ordinate the regional response in the Liverpool City area?

Mr Steve Rotheram: Massive. Massive difference.

As I say, I relied on the goodwill of others, including the leaders of local authorities. We were all from the same political persuasion. It might have been more difficult if we had have had people from different political parties, and therefore the likelihood that people could have played politics at no stage did any individual leader of the local authorities or the combined authority ever put politics before people. It was always about our place and our people and we were about protecting lives but protecting livelihoods as well, and that was the mantra right the way through it. Because we weren’t privy to some of the discussions and deliberations at the Merseyside Resilience Forum it was people anecdotally telling us things that had happened there, and that cannot possibly be the best way that we can run things and there needs to be a statutory footing for metro mayors. Basically our role needs to – the legislation needs to catch up with the advent of what we’ve now got across the city – sorry, across the country with regional mayors.

Counsel Inquiry: Of course, that legislation dates back to 2004 devolution agreements, subsequent to that?

Mr Steve Rotheram: Indeed.

Counsel Inquiry: Considerably so. And do you consider that that lack of status played any role in the way you were treated by central government with regard to effectively COBR meetings, Westminster, Number 10, Cabinet?

Mr Steve Rotheram: Possibly. I haven’t got the evidence to support this but there was a feeling that because we didn’t need to be included that at times we weren’t. And I’m slightly more confident that if we did have that codified statutory responsibility within the Merseyside Resilience Forum that only would the information have been readily to hand but also government would have had to included metro mayors, and myself, as part of the deliberations round that.

Ms Cecil: Thank you.

I have no further questions for you at this stage but if you just pause there.

My Lady, there are two sets.

Lady Hallett: Mr Weatherby.

Questions From Mr Weatherby KC

Mr Weatherby: Thank you very much.

Mr Rotherham, I ask questions on behalf of the Covid Bereaved Families for Justice UK group and I have just two short topics, the first of which is the Atletico Madrid match. It’s of particular importance because a number of the families that I represent believe that their loved ones contracted Covid as a result of that match going ahead.

Now, for context, the match took place on 11 March, and that was the day that the Director General of the WHO belatedly, some may say, declared Covid to be a pandemic, and in doing so called for – called internationally for urgent and aggressive action to combat its spread. His words not mine. Yet on that date the match was allowed to go ahead in Liverpool.

The match was attended by, as you know, more than 50,000 people. The attendance included something like 3,000 people from Madrid. And again, by way of context, at that time Spain generally already had well known high case numbers, Madrid was a particular hotspot, and many Spanish football games were already taking place behind closed doors and there was a partial lockdown there at that time.

So, in terms of the match going ahead, were you consulted by ministers or government officials in relation to any decision to allow the match to go ahead?

Mr Steve Rotheram: So this was during March and sort of the pre-lockdown period, although of course, it happened very quickly afterwards. It was this and the Cheltenham Festival I think at the same time and that’s when lockdown happened which was too late for some people. At no stage were we consulted by anybody, not just national government, but there was no consultations with ourselves. Quite the opposite, actually. I mean, we were trying to get information, and at that stage the Government said the fixture was low risk.

Mr Weatherby KC: Right. So at that time you were concerned about it, and was it your view that the match shouldn’t go ahead?

Mr Steve Rotheram: Well, I was personally concerned as well because I’m a Liverpool fan, and I actually went to the game. And I remember it being very different than I think nearly every other game that I’ve been to because of the fan behaviour. You’ve already seen people sort of not socially distancing because you can’t at a football match but being much more cautious, and certainly with goals being scored, which we all know at a moment of unbridled joy, there was – it was certainly a subdued way which supporters were celebrating.

Mr Weatherby KC: I mean, the concerns you had, did you think it should have gone ahead at the time, or not, or were you simply looking for the guidance from official scientists or Government ministers about it?

Mr Steve Rotheram: We had no scientific evidence to support the fact that we were concerned about it, but if the Government had said, listen, this is not going ahead, I think everyone would have breathed a sigh of relief. But there was no evidence presented to us that it was anything other than the low risk that the Government claimed.

Mr Weatherby KC: Did you attempt to contact ministers or officials to question that, to say: where is the advice?

Mr Steve Rotheram: We had literally no conversations with national government at that stage about concerns over Covid. I mean, the doors were closed.

Mr Weatherby KC: Did you attempt to do so?

Mr Steve Rotheram: No, not directly, no.

Mr Weatherby KC: Yes, okay.

Now, following the match and later in April, I think it’s a matter of public record that the city Mayor, then Joe Anderson, called for an inquiry into why the game had been allowed to go ahead, and I think you supported that call for an inquiry; is that right?

Mr Steve Rotheram: I think if you get the chronology right, I was the first one the day before to say that there needed to be an inquiry into it.

What happened was the Mayor of Liverpool had asked that Matt Ashton, the director of public health, look at a local –

Mr Weatherby KC: I see. So you asked for a governmental level inquiry into whether the match should have gone ahead?

Mr Steve Rotheram: Yes. I had concerns, and I had phone calls from people who were genuinely worried that parents had gone to it and, of course, one or two of those subsequently did succumb to the illness.

Mr Weatherby KC: Did you get any response from a Government level regarding the rationale for the decision to allow the match to go ahead, or how municipal authorities or anybody else was supposed to manage 3,000 attendees from Madrid? Did you get anything after the match was over, after your call for an inquiry, by way of explanation as to that?

Mr Steve Rotheram: This was, as I say, during the period where the Government just blanked anything. It was a waste of time and energy trying to get them to do or help or assist or advise because it all fell on deaf ears at this stage, and not just in March but right the way through until –

Mr Weatherby KC: So you called for an inquiry but got nothing back.

Now, the second point, just very quickly – a different topic but about the position later in the summer. Mr Hancock in his second statement at paragraph 454 effectively puts the blame on local leaders or some local leaders making political points rather than following the data, in terms of the problems that you have already been asked about over the summer. How do you react to that? Was it local leaders who should be held accountable for the difficulties in the imposition of these localised regional restrictions, or were there other issues?

Mr Steve Rotheram: There was never an occasion where I was present at any meeting with any political parties or leaders where people tried to play party politics on this. But, look, does politics play a part in the background to this? Of course it does. When you have local authorities that are being hit the hardest in the whole country, they have a feeling that national government aren’t listening to them.

When you have an NHS that’s teetering anyway, they are political decisions. But there wasn’t party politics that were in any way a consideration of the approach that we took – (overspeaking) –

Mr Weatherby KC: As you said, nearly half of the mayors, the Metropolitan Mayors are, in fact, Conservatives?

Mr Steve Rotheram: Indeed, and within their combined authority areas, there are a mix of different political persuasions.

Mr Weatherby KC: Thank you very much.

Lady Hallett: Thank you, Mr Weatherby.

Ms Peacock.

Questions by Ms Peacock

Ms Peacock: I have a few short questions on behalf of the Trades Union Congress.

You already touched upon in your evidence the Time Out to Help Out campaign you launched in August 2020 alongside Mr Burnham. My questions focus on that campaign.

That campaign asked Central Government to continue to pay workers their full wage when they were required to self-isolate and they were unable to work from home; is that right?

Mr Steve Rotheram: Correct.

Ms Peacock: How did that campaign envisage practically speaking that workers would be paid to self-isolate? What was their proposal?

Mr Steve Rotheram: The proposal was that if anybody felt that they had the symptoms of coronavirus to err on the side of caution and for them to stay at home. The employer would pay the statutory sick pay to them, and – sorry, the bit between statutory sick pay and what their wage was, but that would be topped up by the Government. So the employer would pay, but they would be recompensed by national government.

Ms Peacock: And in terms of self-employed people, was it envisaged they could claim for loss of earnings up to a maximum daily amount as they are able to when on jury service; is that right?

Mr Steve Rotheram: That’s what we thought. We thought people who have complied with their public duty to do jury service, for instance, that’s what we were claiming that people should do with coronavirus. It was about public duty, and it was about those people – about if they went into work with symptoms and those symptoms hadn’t been realised.

Ms Peacock: You explained in your evidence earlier that you considered this issue was absolutely fundamental to why the R rate spiked because people on low incomes were being asked to make that very difficult decision between self-isolating and going to work and receiving payment.

How did this issue come to your attention? How did you become aware that this was an important issue for workers and residents in the Liverpool city region?

Mr Steve Rotheram: I think it was an excellent campaign by the unions to highlight the issue, but I was in dialogue with Frances O’Grady at the time, and she’d spoken out that something needed to happen because too many people, both the excluded groups, so the people who were self-employed and freelancers, were being left behind, but so were people who didn’t qualify because they were on zero hours contract so they were under the threshold.

Ms Peacock: My final question is: do you consider that Central Government responded adequately to the Time Out to Help Out campaign and the need for financial support for self-isolation at any point during the pandemic?

Mr Steve Rotheram: I think this, like a number of other issues that were discussed, was something that not only did they not respond adequately, I don’t think they actually responded.

Ms Peacock: Those are my questions, my Lady.

Lady Hallett: Thank you very much, Ms Peacock.

Ms Peacock: Thank you, my Lady. That concludes the evidence today.

Lady Hallett: Thank you very much indeed, Mr Rotherham. Safe journey back to Liverpool. Thank you for your help.

The Witness: Thank you.

Lady Hallett: That completes the evidence for today. 10.00 tomorrow?

10.00 tomorrow, please.

(4.26 pm)

(The hearing adjourned until 10 am on Tuesday, 28 November 2023)