The size of the government deficit – to be confirmed in the PBR as more than £175bn this year – has sharpened the appetite for public spending cuts, particularly if there is also a cull of very high earners.

The Prime Minister’s plans for “smarter, more efficient government”, intended to release in excess of £12bn a year over four years, play unashamedly to the gallery. A review of top-level civil service pay to achieve a 20% cut in senior salaries is billed as preserving excellence at the front line while making sweeping changes in administration. In theory, this has the potential to slash bureaucracy without substantial damage to the quality of services. In practice, however, this sort of pay cut cannot be achieved in the short-term without expensive severance packages which produce the double whammy of spending public money for a loss of expertise.

Plans to cut consultancy fees by 50% and marketing by 25% also promise much at first glance. The rising bill for consultants suggests that much of the work we expect our highly-paid public servants to do is being farmed out. On the other hand, some decisions require highly specialist expertise. With 123 quangos also lined up for execution, there is a need for objective assessment of how to secure the best advice and regulation of services.

The potential to save £600m in the cost of telephone calls and paperwork from putting more services online is a case in point. There are massive problems with the NHS IT programme in England which are likely to lead to the system being set more modest goals. Therefore, the figure for targeted savings must be questioned. Mr Brown’s confidence in his figures is the result of expert advice from the internet entrepreneur Martha Lane Fox.

Putting services online ought both to cut costs and improve access, producing long-term benefits and savings. The same is true of the proposal to transfer around 10% of civil service jobs from London to “cheaper locations”. There is a severe housing shortage in London and the south-east of England and a lack of higher value jobs in much of the rest of the country, so transfer would have important long-term benefits. In the short-term, however, the savings to be made from cheaper office accommodation must be offset against the costs of relocation and the slump in the value of commercial property which will reduce gains from the sale of London offices and other assets.

The requirement for minis­terial approval of all public service salaries over £150,000 will be popular, but the argument that the rewards for those at the most senior levels must be competitive has be taken seriously if public services are to attract and retain high-quality staff.

The most important question is how £12bn taken out of public service costs will affect services. Detail is required because the government’s claim that it has already saved £26.5bn since 2004 through the Gershon review seems to be over-optimistic, given the questions asked about many reported savings by the National Audit Office in 2007.

Efficiency savings must be made but if the election campaign is to become a bidding war of public spending cuts, it is essential that the risk to front-line services is fully assessed so that those who depend on these services are not harmed by a programme of efficiencies.