Scientists responded with guarded enthusiasm to the plans to tackle animal rights extremism. While the measures were welcomed, some pointed to gaps, such as protection of university science labs.
Civil liberties groups and anti-vivisectionists, however, warned that the proposals could criminalise legal protests and have far reaching effects on other direct action campaigners, such as Greenpeace.
"This is the strongest statement to date, the most comprehensive statement they [the government] have made," said Dr Mark Matfield, executive director of the Research Defence Society, a group that lobbies on behalf of scientists who use animals in their research. "They've never put their vision on the line as clearly and as firmly as this."
Aisling Burnand, chief executive of the Bio Industries Association, welcomed the government's clear signals.
"What this document does is move things up in terms of police priority and say that this is a major thing and we have to deal with it," she said. "It is communicating government determination to deal with this, which is something we've not had previously."
Scientists had been arguing for a single animal rights extremism act to deal with activists. Yesterday's measures shy away from such a drastic step but the government has not closed the door on the idea.
There is concern over the fate of universities, however. Professor Barry Keverne, who chairs the Royal Society's committee on animals in research, said: "We are somewhat concerned that the document published today includes specific references to how these measures will affect business and industry but does not mention universities."
A study by Prof Keverne's group showed that universities were spending an average £175,000 each a year on security against illegal activity by animal rights extremists. "Here is money wasted that should be spent on further research into understanding Aids, cancer and other serious diseases," he said.
Wendy Higgins, of the British Union for the Abolition of Vivisection, which is opposed to violence, said she was concerned that the legal changes would "chip away at the rights of protest on behalf of groups like Greenpeace or Amnesty International".
"It is handing over the interpretation of what constitutes harassment to the corporate sector," she said.
The human rights group Liberty expressed similar fears. "These new offences could be used against peace protesters or those opposed to foxhunting," a spokesman said.
Greg Avery, who has been imprisoned for his animal rights activities and is now spokesman for the group campaigning to close down Huntingdon Life Sciences, dismissed the government's proposals as "perverse" and ineffective.
"What people do is turn up at 2am to put paint stripper over peoples' cars... No one is going to change their mind" because of the new offences, he said.
He said the plans would swell the ranks of the Animal Liberation Front because people would see the government "yet again dancing to the tune of big business".
Dr Evan Harris, a Liberal Democrat member of the Commons science select committee, said the government had failed to agree to underwrite additional insurance costs for small contractors and public sector organisations doing work in animal research that is backed or funded by the government.
"It is escalating insurance premiums - threatening the viability of small firms - which is what ultimately delivers the extremists their victories," said Dr Harris, whose constituency covers the new Oxford animal research centre, where work has halted because of protests.
"The government has also failed to state publicly that it will provide the additional finance required for the security and the building of research establishments, making it extremely unlikely that any other university will upgrade and improve its animal facilities in the current climate and encouraging animal extremists to believe that they can win."
