Home secretary David Blunkett has published the government's Anti-Social Behaviour Bill.

The controversial bill could mean children are fined and beggars jailed as police are given new powers to tackle yob culture.

The legislation seeks to target low-level crimes - such as graffiti, begging and noise - which ministers believe are scarring many towns and cities across the UK.

Forum Response: Crime Concern

Nigel Whiskin, chief executive of Crime Concern, told ePolitix.com: "We support the main thrust of the Anti-Social Behaviour Bill, 'Respect and Responsibility'.

"For too long people living in our most deprived neighbourhoods have had to endure intolerable levels of nuisance and intimidating behaviour from a terrifying minority. 'Respect and Responsibility' is a wake up call to local agencies to work with residents to tackle a range of behaviours that blight so many people's lives.

"My only caveat is that whilst anti-social behaviour orders and other positive measures need to be used in extreme cases, we need local agencies to also look at what they can do to reduce youth crime and nuisance by developing activity programmes like the Youth Inclusion programme.

"Prevention is always cheaper and more effective than cure.

Forum Response: British Retail Consortium

Bill Moyes, director general of the British Retail Consortium said: "Retailers take seriously their responsibility to protect young people from age-restricted products, such as fireworks, alcohol and solvents through our PASS proof of age scheme. We will apply equal diligence to the sale of spray paints. We believe that everyone has right to a safe shopping and working environment and we support the measures in the bill to achieve this.

"However, the anti-social behaviour the government seeks to tackle is often directed at shops and can involve violence against staff.

"Retailers are currently policing the high street without government support and an effective long-term crime strategy will require tackling retail crime to be made a key performance indicator for the police."

Forum Response: British Property Federation

Anna Ring, policy officer at the BPF, said "The British Property Federation believes that all tenants have a right to the quiet enjoyment of their homes and therefore welcomes legislation to tackle anti-social behaviour. We support in principle the measures to strengthen legislation dealing with anti-social tenants and nuisance neighbours.

"However, we are concerned that the measures in this Bill are confined to registered social landlords, and not available across all housing tenures. The Bill will give registered social landlords more powers to take action against anti-social tenants including faster evictions. Making it easier to remove tenants from social housing simply shifts the problem to the private rented sector, which is less well equipped and supported to deal with such tenants. The government must take a holistic approach so that this legislation works effectively for the benefit of all local communities, tenants and landlords.

"There are already a range of measures in legislation that deal with this issue, such as anti-social behaviour orders, and the BPF welcomes those measures in the Bill to improve the enforcement of anti-social behaviour orders. As part of any solution it is important to learn why these are not being more widely used in the private sector."

Forum Response: Barnardo's

Pam Hibert, principal policy officer at Barnardo's, said: "Barnardo's believes the Anti-Social Behaviour Bill could have a damaging impact on children.

"Proposals in the government's Anti-Social Behaviour Bill could have an extremely damaging impact on children and young people, including the possible unintended consequence of bringing larger numbers of children into care and custody.

"We do not condone or make light of criminal behaviour or severe anti-social behaviour and its impact on people's lives. However, the Bill seems to ignore one of the major causes of this problem - the growing income inequality in a country where 3.8 million children live in poverty. The Bill also fails to acknowledge the government's own social inclusion agenda and has no focus on prevention, which is contradictory to other current policy and legislation.

"We fear that some of the proposals would further marginalise the poorest and most disadvantaged children and young people."

Forum Response: The Children's Society

Sharon Moore, policy manager at The Children's Society, said: "The Children's Society is outraged by plans to extend curfew powers forchildren under 16, which any police officer can enforce on-the-spot. The law significantly threatens children's freedoms already - and this goes even further.

"We feel strongly that the government needs to think twice before seriously restricting children's freedom in this way.

"The Children's Society is also concerned that plans to disperse groups of children under the age of 16 may seriously restrict the opportunities they have to meet and play. Who determines the line between children playing and being a nuisance?

"We recognise that nuisance behaviour must be tackled. But plans will label vulnerable children as criminals for non-criminal behaviour -push them towards a life of crime.

"Plans for school staff and other officials to fine children and their families for anti-social behaviour are far too simplistic and will plunge already struggling families further into poverty.

"The Children's Society has deep reservations about plans to increase powers for councils and housing associations to evict families. This could cause even greater hardship and increase the number of homeless families. This measure will not only fail to tackle the root causes of anti-social behaviour, but threaten children's health and well-being."