The home secretary has pledged to tackle the scourge of anti-social behaviour with hard-hitting new laws.

David Blunkett said the government's Anti-Social Behaviour Bill was not just aimed at giving police officers new powers but was a "symbol of the need for cultural change".

As the legislation continues through parliament, the Children's Society asked the ePolitix.com Forum for views on whether moves to give police the power to disperse groups of two or more children will make communities safer, or further alienate children and attack their fundamental rights and freedoms.

Forum Response: The Children's Society

Sharon Moore, policy manager for the Children's Society, told ePolitix.com: "The Children's Society is 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 - pushing them towards a life of crime. We feel strongly that the government needs to think twice before seriously restricting children's freedom in this way."

Forum Response: Shelter

Adam Sampson, director for Shelter, said: "Shelter believes that everyone has the right to a decent, safe and affordable home. Unfortunately, the unacceptable behaviour of a few can ruin the lives of many - splitting communities and leaving people living in misery in their own home.

"However, these proposals do nothing to tackle this behaviour and could lead to increased homelessness. We at Shelter are left to deal with the consequences.

"We must work to prevent behaviour getting out of control in the first place by working with people to challenge and alter their behaviour and not resort to threats of homelessness."

Forum Response: Barnardo's

Pam Hibbert, principal policy officer at Barnardo's, told ePolitix.com: "The power for police to move on two or more young people from a locality or to return under 16's home at any time is of great concern. Barnardo's is concerned about the accountability of the 'relevant officer' and the omission of any requirement to consult with local people including the children and young people themselves.

"We feel that this could contribute to a climate where young people are feared rather than valued as members of their own community and will only serve to increase rather than decrease the fear of crime and misbehaviour which is so pervasive.

"Everyone has the right to use public spaces and to socialise with their peers and to exclude young people from this right could have a significant effect on their personal and social development. Again we fear that use of such powers could be discriminatory, focussing on the poorest neighbourhoods and those lacking accessible and affordable amenities and facilities for young people.

"It is interesting to note that the grounds for dispersal need only be that the presence of the young people 'is likely to result in, etc' - they need not actually be engaged in any anti-social behaviour. We believe that such an approach will only serve to alienate young people from the rest of their community and the enforcing officers to an even greater degree.

"Our own work with young people in communities engages them and the community adults in addressing the fears and beliefs that both groups have and finding solutions that are co-operative and mutually supportive rather than punitive. We should also remember that children and young people are frequently the victims of harassment and crime and find protection and safety in groups when out and about."

Forum Response: National Youth Agency

Pete Loewenstein, development officer for the National Youth Agency, told ePolitix.com: "Certainly the NYA is pleased to see acknowledgement of the need to generate 'a society where we respect each other, our property and our shared public spaces'.

"At the same time, we are concerned about some of the other proposals, and the concentration on enforcement measures over tackling root causes. The risk is these measures will reinforce the anti-social behaviour of some young people and the negative perceptions of young people as troublemakers who should be removed from streets. Several of the proposed measures are unhelpful and unworkable.

"Police powers for group dispersal and fast-track child curfews will harm relationships between them and young people. They will penalise law-abiding young people with nowhere else to go, while propagating the myth that it is groups of young people who are largely to blame for anti-social behaviour. Many young people stay in groups because they are afraid for their own safety. Good youth work is a better option, working with groups of young people to find solutions that are welcomed by all.

"Removing reporting restrictions on orders made on conviction in the youth court will add to the media demonising of young people, harming young offenders' rehabilitation and possibly contravening the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child.

"Powers for designated school staff to issue fixed penalty notices to parents in truancy cases will undermine trust between parents and schools and add to the burden on teachers. Extending fixed penalty fines to 16 and 17-year-olds - who in reality are unlikely to be able to pay them - may also exacerbate tensions between parents and children and will increase financial pressure on poor families.

"The paper lacks measures to tackle the poverty that lies behind so much anti-social behaviour. Some proposals will serve to deepen divisions and further alienate vulnerable people, without addressing the underlying problems. Investing in targeted youth work will help to revitalise the social capital in our most marginalised communities."