Another Conservative forgets how the public sector works - or is Lord James of Blackheath not paying attention?

David James was, in his day, a 'company doctor' of some renown, rescuing a series of British companies from misfortune, incompetence, or the vagaries of the economic cycle. In recent years, however, he became better known for his review of government spending, carried out on behalf of the Conservative Party prior to the 2005 General Election.

That review called for fairly swingeing cuts in public expenditure, involving a reduction in the size of the civil service. I didn't then, and don't now, have an objection to cutting the size of government as an aim, although the Labour Party took great delight in shouting from the rooftops that Conservatives were going to cut 'vital public services'. The proposed spending cuts, totalling £34 billion, were one of the many self-inflicted wounds that cost the Conservatives in 2005.

His reward was a seat in the House of Lords in 2006, where he specialises in issues relating to defence procurement, NHS finances and Olympic funding. Yesterday, he asked the following question in the Lords;

"To ask Her Majesty's Government, in light of the current economic circumstances, whether they will impose a freeze on new public sector recruitment and permit only replacements for staff who have left."

I fear that the noble Lord has rather lost touch with recent developments in government employment strategies. In terms of Central Government, the existing target of cutting budgets by 5% per annum in real terms has had significant effects on employment levels, with 25,000 jobs going over six years in HM Revenue & Customs alone. The costs of government bureaucracy arise predominantly from the salaries of staff and the buildings needed to house them, and so it is inevitable that job losses are part of the strategy.

Lord James also overlooks the need to maintain a conveyor belt of future senior civil servants. They don't come fully matured, but need to be trained and developed across a range of government activity. Recruits entering the Civil Service this year will be the mandarins of thirty years hence, and you need to allow for that.

I won't say much about the impact of such a proposal on Local Government, except to note that centrally driven restrictions on public sector employment are hardly consistent with Conservative thoughts on localism.

Lord Myners's response is somewhat reassuring. Yes, there will be continuing efforts to drive down the costs of government. However, he seems to understand that some elements of its work are demand-driven. For example, if unemployment increases, you need more staff to handle benefit claims and to assist peope to find work.

It would be foolish to suggest that Lord James is engaging in the politics of the cheap soundbite. However, he should be cautious lest his actions give the impression that he is doing just that...