As the last parliamentary session closed, the Technical and Further Education Act was passed, establishing the framework for a programme of reform that should transform professional and technical education delivery in England. If, that is, it is designed and implemented properly.

Of course, we’ve been here before and the City & Guilds Group’s Sense and Instability report (bit.ly/SenseInstability) highlighted the damage that the endless churns and changes within technical education have caused over the past three decades. That said, we now have a once-in-a-generation opportunity to reshape professional and technical education into a world-class system, as long as the FE sector and employers are allowed a voice to use their experience to influence the changes.

There have been concerns raised across the sector about the excessive speed at which the changes are being implemented. The government’s recent announcement of its intention to delay the implementation of T levels is therefore welcome news; it’s a sign that it’s in listening mode. It is vital that the imperative to reform and consolidate the professional and technical education market is balanced with the need to mitigate against the potential for wholesale systemic failure and that it considers the impact on the students.

Thanks to the report Assessing the Vocational Qualifications Market in England - published by consultancy firm Frontier Economics’ in July - the government now has a document that sets out the risks and trade-offs of different delivery models. These alternative models consider the various changes to the way competition could operate within the market, from a restricted but competitive awarding organisation licensing arrangement to a system of single exclusive licences - the latter of which we believe could have a hugely detrimental impact on the sector, if it is taken to its extreme for every route.

While there is no question that some reform and rationalisation of the market is needed, what form this should take needs greater consideration and consultation. Although the government’s ambition to make the system more efficient is valid, simply demolishing and rebuilding the current system won’t solve all of the problems. Funding is always a key driver of change, so if improving efficiency is the end goal, the focus now should be on what the Department for Education funds and how it spends it.

Of the six scenarios modelled in the report, the single supplier arrangement across every occupation route carries the greatest risk. Above all, retaining a truly competitive market is vital for maintaining customer choice, quality standards and value for money.

Ultimately, an open market is the foundation of most successful business endeavours. The whole point of a competitive system is to incentivise dynamism and innovation; if providers have no rivals, what is there to make them responsive and provide a good service, or to encourage them to invest in new technology or boost standards? We only need to look at railway franchising to see the inherent risks of not having this - particularly around choice and value.

A number of risks

While greater consolidation could have huge benefits in making the system more recognisable and rigorous, moving to a single supplier model across all occupations would cancel out competition, which could make the system less responsive and innovative.

In its discussion of the future of the skills market, the report highlights a number of risks that would need to be lessened as part of any move to a new tendering model for individual licences. These range in risk level from irreparably damaging the eco-system of the skills sector to concerns around competition, inefficiency, choice and value for money.

The level of risk can be mitigated by the final model that is eventually adopted. It suggests that there are lower risks associated with scenarios that keep a reasonable number of competing suppliers in the market. Of the six models presented in the report, this would reject a single supplier arrangement in favour of restricted but multiple supplier licences with a minimum duration of five years.

The metrics clearly state that having competition in the market increases an awarding organisation’s likelihood of responding to the needs of employers and learners, and innovating by looking for new and better ways to meet the demands of the market. It increases incentives to provide a better quality service, and decreases the likelihood of complacency.

There will likely be many differences of opinion as to the right model but we now have the opportunity for the whole sector to work together, through consultation, to establish an effective supplier model for post-16 technical education. If we get this wrong, we will let down yet another generation and set back the cause of skills development in the UK at a time when we can scarce afford to. Let’s make sure we get this right.

Kirstie Donnelly is managing director of City & Guilds