'Disgust' at 'shocking' decision by SCC to ban councillors from funding LGBT+ Pride

'Shocking', 'insulting', 'disgusting'. These are some of the words being used in reaction to a last-minute decision by bosses at Surrey County Council (SCC) to ban councillors from providing funding to Surrey's annual LGBT+ Pride celebration, which is taking place today.

The Surrey Post has been given sight of an explosive email chain from the past week in which senior SCC staff told councillors that they will not be allowed to go ahead with making grants to the county's leading LGBT+ organisation, Pride in Surrey (PiS), to support the Pride event that is taking place today (6th September) in Guildford.

The decision appears to have been made personally by Terence Herbert, the Chief Executive of SCC, the organisational motto of which is 'No one left behind'.

In an email sent to various Liberal Democrat county councillors in the Guildford and Godalming area (who had been seeking to award funding to PiS), Mr Herbert claims that Pride in Surrey is "not truly representative of" and "divisive" within the LGBTQ+ community and that he had therefore decided that the "publicly funded resource of [the county council]" should not be used to fund Pride.

Councillors reacted furiously to the decision, with one saying that she was "shocked and disgusted", while Pride in Surrey have reacted with dismay to what they called an "insulting decision" which they say has "subverted the authority of elected representatives in a way that actively damages the spaces of LGBTQ+ people in Surrey".

The funding for Pride was meant to have come from the YCCF (Your Councillor Community Fund) which gives every county councillor a pot of £5,000 a year to use to make small grants to local good causes. Councillors have previously had freedom to make these awards as they see fit, which is what makes Mr Herbert's intervention so unprecedented.

Publicly available records also show that councillors were allowed to club together to give £2,900 in YCCF funding to Pride in Surrey last year.

One of those councillors was Penny Rivers (Godalming North, Liberal Democrat) who responded in the email chain by saying:

I am shocked and disgusted by this email.

Please can you tell me precisely which organisation/charity/cause that we councillors support with YCCF grants is truly ( by which you must mean - completely) representative of their organisation/charity/cause?

And in the case of Pride in Surrey is SCC saying they are not representing LGBTQ+ appropriately thus are operating under false pretences?  If that is what you think what will you actually do?

I have no pride in SCC.

She was joined in the email chain by councillors Fiona White (Guildford West, Liberal Democrat) and George Potter (Guildford East, Liberal Democrat) who also expressed anger at the decision, with Cllr White also saying:

I cannot see that you have offered any evidence for your assertion that Pride in Surrey is not truly representative of the LGBTQ+ community.

I could not, hand on heart, claim that every organisation I have supported with my YCCF funding is truly representative of the community. If you are going to use that as a standard to judge by, I would like to be told which organisations SCC feels should be supported.

The councillors were backed up by their leader, Paul Follows (Godalming South, Liberal Democrat), the leader of the official opposition at SCC, who said that he was "frankly appalled by this whole discussion" and that he would be raising it formally and in public at the next available opportunity".

However, Mr Herbert responded tersely to "Cllr Follows and others", saying:

I again repeat my offer of a meeting to you to discuss this, and any other issue. An offer you have, for some months, chosen to ignore.

Away from the political back and forth, the organisation impacted by the decision is Pride in Surrey who have been struggling to raise money to pay for this year's Pride.

In a Facebook fundraising appeal on 19th August they told supporters that it had been a "real challenging year", highlighting that the annual event in Guildford's Stoke Park cost £60,000, and asking for help in raising £1,200 to pay for essential infrastructure costs.

Beyond financial struggles, PiS also faced intense media scrutiny earlier this year after their former founder, Stephen Ireland, was imprisoned for raping a 12 year old boy. PiS had removed Ireland from the organisation prior to his arrest, and has subsequently launched a safeguarding review, but news of the conviction resulted in SCC removing 'active support' for Pride.

SCC had not directly funded Pride since 2021, but council staff had still attended to run stalls such as an exhibit on the county's LGBTQ+ history organised by Surrey Heritage. The Surrey Post understands that SCC staff are no longer permitted to participate in Pride in any official capacity.

Although SCC statements about PiS have been made by Mr Herbert as the CEO, it is unlikely that these decisions could have been made without the support of the council's Conservative political leadership.

Conservatives in Surrey have previously expressed hostility to PiS after Conservative Lisa Townsend, Surrey's Police and Crime Commissioner, was criticised for her anti-trans views by PiS volunteers (one of whom was Stephen Ireland) and her name was booed by attendees at Pride events. It is unknown whether this played a part in SCC's decision to block councillor grants to Pride.

For their part, PiS themselves have responded to the news with a statement expressing a mix of disappointment, concern and defiance:

We are disappointed to hear of Surrey County Council’s decision to block the funding of local councillors through the YCCF. It is important to note that there are many within SCC who are outraged by this decision, including many councillors who have known and supported Pride in Surrey for many years.

SCC’s decision is concerning for a number of reasons. This decision has subverted the authority of elected representatives in a way that actively damages the spaces of LGBTQ+ people in Surrey. We echo the sentiments of many of the councillors who have had their funding blocked - individuals within Surrey County Council are interfering with the rights of elected representatives to support legitimate organisations of their choosing.

We are also concerned about what appears to be a shocking lack of oversight surrounding this decision. The claim that Pride in Surrey doesn’t “represent” LGBTQ+ people in Surrey has been made with no justification, and frankly, is insulting to the many thousands of queer people in Surrey who attend and enjoy our events, as well as our hardworking team of volunteers. Many people we have talked to suspect this excuse to have been invented for the sole purpose of withdrawing support from a queer event. It appears that this decision was taken by a very small number of individuals, with the opinions of most parties being actively ignored.

We worry the decisions taken by Surrey County Council this year to seemingly withdraw support from Surrey’s LGBTQ+ community marks a worrying trend that we are seeing replicated by councils across the county, where blind eyes are being turned to the real danger our community faces.

Despite Surrey County Council’s unwillingness to support Surrey’s LGBTQ+ community at a time where it is so crucial, Pride in Surrey 2025 will still be a amazing day, bringing our community together in a display of solidarity with our whole community.

We’d like to thank Guildford Borough Council, and other Councils across the county, for their continued support for Pride in Surrey. We are excited to be marching and celebrating Pride with Surrey’s LGBTQ+ community, and will continue to do so for many years to come.

Conservative and Liberal Democrat political leaders at Surrey County Council were contacted yesterday, alongside PiS, for comment regarding this story.

No response has been received at time of going to print, but it should be noted that our print deadline has meant that those contacted only had Friday afternoon and evening to respond.