“The dog that didn’t bark” is an over-used phrase, but it is instructive just how often the most interesting thing about a report is what it doesn’t say.

It’s in that spirit that I read the government’s newly published response to MP Alan Milburn’s report on fair access to the professions. My own recent experience of this is as a parent, forking out a five-figure sum for a mandatory course so that my daughter could become a barrister. I don’t begrudge her a penny, of course, and I can afford it – but many others can’t. No wonder so few junior barristers come from outside the middle classes.

So I looked to see whether the government is minded to tackle the high costs associated with entry to so many professions, especially the “old professions” such as medicine and law. Two of Milburn’s recommendations touch on “addressing financial fears” and a further nine on “removing financial constraints”, but all are about helping students to pay the bills, and none explore how those bills might be cut. The question isn’t even asked.

I doubt if the professions will ever be ready for the sort of holy cow-slaughtering zeal of Ryanair’s cost-cutting chief executive Michael O’Leary, but the approach of one of his less flamboyant competitors may be more to their taste. Jim French, chairman and chief executive of Flybe, was quoted recently as saying that, though he hated cutting staff, he “loved” cutting costs. Flybe is a successful low-cost airline but, unlike others, the company has been keen to retain a customer service culture. And the airline combines cost-cutting with serious investment in training: its £24-million training academy opens this autumn.

That sounds to me like the sort of approach we need to education in the professions (and, indeed, more generally): no compromise on quality, but a passion for cutting costs where they can be cut. Professional education will never be cheap, but we do potential students a disservice if we don’t work hard to keep costs down for them.