ast week, this newspaper warned that our national institutions are failing to stand up to Islamist terrorism. We cited as evidence the extraordinary networks of radicalism operating unhindered in the UK. University campuses where hate preachers are allowed to speak. Pupils from the same schools who wind up waging jihad in the Middle East. Self-described human rights campaigners with links to extremists. And, of course, at the centre of it all is the terrifying figure of Mohammed Emwazi – the fanatical murderer of aid workers and journalists.

It looks as though the Government has listened to these warnings. The Sunday Telegraph has obtained a draft of a “counter-extremism strategy” that will be rolled out in response to the Charlie Hebdo killings in France and the Emwazi case. Its contents suggest a timely overhaul of the way that the state approaches Islamist extremism. Radicals will be banned from working unsupervised with children. There will be a crackdown on Sharia courts. Jobcentre staff will be trained to spot those vulnerable to extremism. The benefits system will be recalibrated to compel the learning of English. Accepting and upholding British values will be an integral part of applying for a visa.

A lot of this is common sense and it is surprising that many of these ideas have not been implemented before. Britain is an open and tolerant country that has a fine tradition of welcoming to its shores those fleeing persecution or those who want to make a better life for themselves while contributing to their new home. But it makes no sense to open up the British border to people who might be actively engaged in trying to destroy the democratic system or encouraging violence against its citizens. We have a long history of cherishing free speech. But any speakers who would inspire extremism and put citizens at risk are obviously not welcome in the UK.

In short, the Government appears to be working along the right lines. But the public needs to see some detail. Given that there will be significant parliamentary opposition and that these changes touch upon sensitive areas of human rights law, the proposals have to be absolutely watertight.

As we have previously reported, aspects of the Government’s counter-terrorism strategy have been undermined by practical problems. For example, Britain has managed to deport a mere 12 terror suspects from its shores in the last decade under its Deportation with Assurances (DWA) scheme. In roughly the same period, France deported more than 100 more. The senior official in charge of overseeing the DWA recently quit his position after an attempted deportation case collapsed, saying that he could not support the programme in the way that it currently operates.

While the spirit of the Government’s agenda is absolutely right, such efforts have, in the past, been allowed to wither due to mistakes or human rights concerns. Civil liberties certainly need to be considered and a debate about the implications of these reforms conducted openly. But, ultimately, the Emwazi case demonstrates the clear need for a much tougher take on extremism in Britain. We know from tragic experience that it is a matter of life and death.