Troublesome teenagers could face being named and shamed on "ban lists" at football grounds and social events in future.

The move is part of the new Parental Responsibility legislation which aims to crack down on anti-social behaviour and ensure parents control their children.

Attorney General Kim Wilson explained at a public forum how the new law enables her to make a "child curfew scheme" banning certain under-18s from attending specified public places such as a sports match or a concert. She is allowed to put a curfew in place "for the purpose of maintaining order," after consultation with the Commissioner of Police. The order would be able to specify the age of the banned children and the public place in question, and could last up to 90 days.

The exception to the ban would be if the children were accompanied to the venue by a responsible adult aged 21 or over. Explaining the measures at Thursday's forum at CedarBridge Academy, Sen. Wilson said: "Let's say, for example, that Police intelligence suggests a particular football match is likely to result in a group of persons that are perhaps targets under the legislation, and intelligence suggests they're going to gather at three o'clock somewhere.

"The Minister has the power, in consultation with the Police, to issue a curfew order."

The order has to be publicised, according to the legislation, by posting the notice in the specified area, in the Official Gazette, or in any other manner the Minister feels is desirable.

If a Police officer finds a child breaking a ban imposed by a curfew notice, they must notify the authorities and take the child home or to a children's home if their residence is considered to be unsafe.

The issue of publicising the curfews sparked concern from John Barritt, the Opposition spokesman on legislative reform, who attended the forum.

He asked Sen. Wilson if this meant the juveniles in question would have their names listed on posters at the venue and potentially in the newspaper and she agreed it would.

Detailing his concerns after the meeting, Mr. Barritt said: "I don't know how the Minister for Justice proposes to handle this option, but it seems to me to not only be an extreme measure but counterproductive to boot.

"First, the Minister will have to be absolutely sure that any youths who are going to be named are the right persons. Otherwise reputations will be seriously damaged which, with young people, could be overwhelming and of lasting effect. I say this because there has to be public notice."

Mr. Barritt said it seemed to him that if a youth or a group of youths need to be subjected to a curfew, this could be achieved under a separate aspect of the new legislation anti social behaviour orders (ASBOs.)

Such orders are issued by the courts after an application from the Police and do not have an element requiring wide publicity.

In response, Sen. Wilson said there is an alternative to naming specific children.

"Notification can take place either by naming the individuals if that information is available or, simply applying the curfew to all 12 and 13-year-olds unless the proviso of being under the control of a responsible person aged 21 years or over exists," she explained.

Asked if the curfew measures might be considered too draconian, Sen. Wilson replied: "Tough times call for tough measures. I am of the belief that the vast majority of right-thinking Bermudians recognise and appreciate that we are experiencing difficult times which call for such measures which have not been seen in our community before.

"If the child is accompanied by a responsible person over 21, then the curfew order would not apply to them.

"I further believe that if there was such an order, the majority of responsible parents would either accompany their child to the event, or alternately, restrict their child's attendance, as the making of a curfew order would clearly suggest that police intelligence suggests that some undesirable activities are likely anticipated."

• What do you think? E-mail news@royalgazette.bm