But now there are going to be more changes?

Mr Blunkett now says he wants to go further and better target the minority causing the most nuisance. He says he can use tagging and satellite technology to restrict the activities of these people. Some of his critics say where there is punishment, there must also be rehabilitation and education to break cycles of criminality.

Although not much of this is new thinking, Mr Blunkett has also proposed giving communities the power to force their councils or local police to act. How this would work in practice remains to be seen.

So how do the powers work in practice?

Police officers may disperse groups of two or more people in areas which have been designated as having a problem with nuisance.

Officers can disperse the group if they believe their presence "has resulted, or is likely to result, in the public being intimidated, harassed, alarmed or distressed". Anyone who refuses to comply faces arrest.

In practical terms this is aimed at vandals and those who drink or smoke drugs in public. But charities such as the Children's Society say the powers are so wide they probably breach human rights safeguards.

It opposes a further power to remove the under-16s from the street after 9pm, saying they may have legitimate reasons for being there.

It also argues that the legislation damages relations between the generations.

So have anti-social powers been generally welcomed?

Many police officers welcome the powers � some forces are remodelling their approach to crime to focus more closely on this kind of pro-active community policing rather than reacting to a crime after they have happened.

But there are reservations about whether the approach will ultimately work.

For instance, an Asbo bans an individual from an entire area � and can lead to imprisonment should the order be breached. Courts have proved reluctant to issue the orders without substantial evidence.

The government says the new-look Asbos are easier to secure and implement and predicts that there will be far more orders in the future.

But do these powers have public support?

People clearly want an end to nuisance crime but, anecdotally, people in problem areas also say they want more resources to keep the young occupied.

Many councils are already responding to the concept of tackling nuisance crime in other ways.

In Nottingham, where some of the first no-go areas were designated, the city council has poured resources into a wider anti-social behaviour strategy for the past 10 years.

This includes doggedly pursuing what it sees as nuisance beggars � one woman has been jailed twice � and introducing 60 neighbourhood wardens who patrol and assist the police on council estates.

Are there other concerns?

One theory is that anti-social behaviour strategies only move the problem elsewhere, rather than solving it.

A coalition of charities also fought tooth and nail against the legislation saying the powers to disperse teenagers would criminalise the young.

Anti-social behaviour in England and Wales
Instances recorded 10 Sept 2003
Incident	Reports	Est annual cost
Littter/rubbish	10,686	�466m
Vandalism	7,855	�667m
Nuisance/intimidation	13,075	�851m
Noise/Rowdiness	10,713	�498m
Abandoned vehicles	4,994	�90m
Drinking/begging	3,239	�126m
Drugs related	2,920	�132m
Animal related	2,546	�114m
Prostitution-related	1,011	�42m
Source: Home Office Day Count exercise