Council ‘engagement officers’ are issuing more Asbo-style bans than some of Britain’s largest police forces, according to newly released FoI data. The use of Public Spaces Protection Orders (PSPOs), which lack safeguards for free speech and assembly, is raising fresh concerns about the growing overreach of local councils.
Using these PSPOs, ‘engagement officers’ have issued more Asbo-style bans than some of Britain’s largest police forces, using Public Spaces Protection Orders (PSPOs) that lack protections for rights of assembly or free speech – raising fresh concerns about the overreach of local council powers.
Data obtained by civil liberties campaign group the Manifesto Club using Freedom of Information (FOI) laws reveals that Doncaster council’s engagement officers issued over 500 dispersal orders banning individuals from public spaces in 2024, a figure that dwarfs the 263 issued by South Yorkshire Police, the force responsible for the same area.
Even the Metropolitan Police, the country’s largest force, only slightly exceeded Doncaster’s tally with 522 dispersal orders during the same period. In total, only three police forces—Hampshire (990), Northumbria (833), and Norfolk (753)—issued more dispersals than Doncaster council.
Dispersal orders are typically reserved for police forces, but Doncaster council is among a small group of local authorities using PSPOs to grant similar powers to their staff.
Introduced under the Anti-Social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014, PSPOs allow councils to target activities carried on in a public place that “have had a detrimental effect on the quality of life of those in the locality” (or “it is likely that activities will be carried on in a public place within that area and that they will have such an effect”). Breaching these orders can result in fines of up to £1,000 or on-the-spot penalties of £100.
The FSU has long warned that vaguely-worded PSPOs, while intended to tackle anti-social behaviour, often have unintended consequences for free speech and lawful expression.
One of the main problems is that many of these PSPOs are criminalising conduct which causes ‘alarm or distress’ with no safeguards for free speech. Why is that a problem? Let’s say you want to protest on the streets and talk about someone dying and unbeknown to you this causes someone ‘distress’. Unfortunately, according to some PSPO wordings, you might be liable, even if you didn’t intend it to and couldn’t have foreseen the ‘distress’ I would cause.
In total, the FSU has analysed PSPOs that are either in place or proposed across 16 local councils and found multiple instances where the conditions specified in the Act do not appear to have been satisfactorily met. For instance, terms such as “swearing,” “shouting,” “insulting,” or “offensive” are common, alongside vague descriptors like “annoyance,” “nuisance,” “alarm and/or distress.”
There are, for instance, regular references to words and phrases such as ‘swearing’, ‘shouting’, ‘insulting’, ‘obscene’ and/or ‘offensive’, as well as ill-defined behaviour terms such as ‘annoyance’, ‘nuisance’, ‘alarm’ and/or ‘distress’. These ambiguities risk empowering overzealous enforcement, unnecessarily curbing individual freedoms.
The obvious risk is that the vague language in which these prohibitions are couched enables overly zealous enforcement, risking unnecessary curbs on individual freedoms.
In April 2024, we successfully pressured Redbridge Council to abandon a PSPO that criminalised behaviours like wolf-whistling, arguing that such restrictions violated free speech protections.
Similarly, in August 2024, Thanet District Council rescinded a proposed PSPO that included fines for swearing in public spaces, following the FSU’s legal challenge citing concerns over free speech infringement.
The Manifesto Club’s report corroborates these concerns, highlighting the sharp rise in PSPO enforcement. In 2023, councils across England and Wales issued 19,162 fixed penalty notices for PSPO breaches, a 42% increase from the previous year.
This increase has been attributed in part to the involvement of private enforcement companies, which are often incentivised by the volume of fines they issue. As the Manifesto Club’s report makes clear, the 39 councils which employed a private enforcement company for PSPOs issued 14,633 penalties, while the 261 councils that did not employ a private company issued 4,529 penalties. Out of the top 10 issuing councils, only two (Durham and Brent) did not employ a private enforcement company.
Harrow, Redbridge, and Hillingdon accounted for over 10,000 of these penalties, with private enforcement companies playing a significant role. Councils employing private contractors issued 14,633 penalties in 2023, compared to just 4,529 from councils using in-house staff.
The report also highlights the troubling implications for free speech, noting that Council officers are also now policing public mores and standards of politeness, with four councils issuing penalties for swearing, abusive language or ‘obscene gestures’. This puts officers in the position of being ‘language police’, controlling the words and gestures people can use in public spaces. Restrictions upon amplification represent another significant infringement upon free speech and public assembly, since without amplification it is impossible to speak to a public gathering.
Speaking to the Telegraph, Josie Appleton, director of the Manifesto Club, said: “The power to bar people from public spaces represents a very serious restriction on their freedom and ability to go about their daily lives. It’s outrageous that a small group of council officers are excluding such large numbers of people from a city centre, on such flimsy grounds.”
Meanwhile, Doncaster council is expanding its enforcement team. The authority’s website lists a team of 10 engagement officers, with plans to hire five more to tackle anti-social and “unseemly” behaviour. Applicants are required to possess “excellent communication skills” and a willingness to be “highly visible on the street.”
Doncaster’s current PSPO prohibits activities such as loitering, tampering with parking equipment, drinking, and begging. The dispersal order reads: “No return within 24 hours if asked to leave. No person shall, after being requested to leave by an authorised officer due to them behaving in a manner causing or likely to cause harassment, alarm, distress, nuisance, or annoyance to any person within the city centre without reasonable excuse, remain or return to the city centre within a period of 24 hours.”
Doncaster council did not respond to a request for comment. However, proponents of PSPOs argue that these meas
Both the FSU and Manifesto Club continue to call for greater oversight and legal clarity to prevent PSPOs from undermining civil liberties.
There’s more on this story here.
