Legislate in haste and repent at leisure has too often been this government’s watchword. The raft of anti-terror proposals announced by Tony Blair must stand the test of scrutiny when framed as law. Bloodcurdling threats to this country last week from Ayman al-Zawahiri, the Al-Qaeda number two, and some disquiet about our ministers disappearing on long holidays while a third terror cell was on the loose, may have prompted the prime minister’s timing.

But the general message was welcome, if long overdue: “If people want to come here, either fleeing persecution or seeking a better life, they play by our rules . . . If they don’t, they are going to have to go because they are threatening our people and our way of life.”

Quite so. Foreign governments, newspapers such as this one and ordinary people have for years been bemused, then angered, by the successive failure of Conservative and Labour governments to deny access to outsiders who pose a threat to this country and to our allies. Whereas the occasional agitator from America and Europe, such as the rabble-rouser Louis Farrakhan, have been kept out of Britain on the flimsiest evidence, Islamic extremists preaching hatred and violence have needed no licence, as they do in Germany, to preach in our mosques. Now we hope these double standards will no longer apply. Nor are many asylum seekers automatically granted leave to stay. In fact the overwhelming majority have their applications rejected as bogus. The authorities just fail to remove them. It is only the tiny minority who have been both granted asylum and preach violence that need a change in the law.

Similarly, unless the government really intends to become the recruiting sergeant for racist parties that thrive on grievances, it will act to stop abuse of the benefit system. Police are investigating allegations that the four suspected July 21 bombers collected more than £500,000 in social security payments. One extremist cleric who praised the September 11 terrorists as “magnificent” boasts that his extended family has been in receipt of £300,000 over 20 years, plus the gift of a £30,000 Ford Galaxy. How many job interviews have he and his kind been asked to attend? Who wrote their sick notes?

Any new measures to combat Islamic treason must be properly thought through. The pitfalls of sloppy groundwork are there for all to see. Last week Tony McNulty, a minister, had to admit that the government had oversold the case for identity cards. They were no panacea for terrorism or fraud. You also do not have to be a knee-jerk libertarian to care that new laws must have regard for the judicial process. Again, it is eminently sensible to ban organisations that try to incite terrorism, but what do you do if they merely change their names? Laws curbing encouragement to terrorism must not be framed so vaguely as to suppress legitimate dissent from official policy towards Iraq and the Middle East and our right to free speech. Yesterday on Radio 4 Charles Falconer, the lord chancellor, seemed confused about the principles that underlie his government’s proposals. It is hardly a promising start.

Already there are arguments about whether it is possible to derogate from the Human Rights Act even in a public emergency. Without such a derogation it may not be possible to deport enemies of this country, the civil liberties lobby cries. Meanwhile, the judges are in revolt at Home Office high-handedness, while the rest of us sometimes wonder whether judges understand the real world.

Tony and Cherie Blair conveniently personify the two mutually antagonistic lobbies: the executive which runs roughshod over procedure, and the wide-eyed civil liberties lobby. Perhaps the couple can resolve their differences during their holiday over the next few weeks.

A third way new Labour compromise ought to be found. But don’t bet on it.