Rumours are flying around that our new Prime Minister wants to mandate free bus travel for everyone up to the age of sixteen. This would just leave those between 18 and some point in a person’s 60s paying for public transport.

Why do I question whether this policy is a mistake? Not because I think it is wrong, it isn’t, although it suffers from the same issues as any other universal benefit, by including those that could pay for the service, as well as those that benefit. Still, that issue can be dealt with through general taxation, something our previous Prime Minister never seemed to realise when creating the Winter Fuel Allowance debacle that set him on the road to the end of his premiership.

In the case of free bus travel, could this be someone that Mr Burnham has looked at through the lens of an urban mayor, with little lifetime experience of rural areas?  

Free bus transport should be extended to age 18, not stop at 16, in order to come into line with the official, but not statutory, learning leaving age. If David Blunkett is advising Mr Burnham, he should be pressing this case as a former distinguished Secretary of State for Education.

If Mr Burnham wants to reduce the number of NEETs, making them pay to travel to college after Year 11 won’t help his case, especially in rural areas, where there may not even be a bus service. If Mr Burnham is to be a Prime Minister for the country, and not just a Labour Prime Minster, then he must understand the needs of all young people, regardless of where they live.

I have suggested before, that 16-18 year olds in rural areas wanting to go to college, where there is no possible bus route, face a real deterrent. My advice was to remove motor Insurance tax from vehicles taxed in the name of a 16-18 year old, and for their sole use.

Mr Burnham should also make it clear how any policy about free bus travel would link to parental choice of schooling? Again, free travel in urban areas means parental choice is not an issue, but it is in rural areas where free travel to the ‘nearest school’ has been the norm since 2014.  

The small group that really needs a change in policy to align with the principle of free bus travel to 18 are those young people living in rural areas with selective schools. Kent, springs to mind, along with Essex, Buckinghamshire and Gloucestershire.

In these areas, taking the selection test for secondary school is seen as a parental choice, and doesn’t therefore qualify for free transport. This is an attack on the less well off working and living in rural areas. If Mr Burnham wants to mandate free transport for all to age 16 or, as I prefer 18, anyone living in a rural area and passing the selection test for a selective school should be provided with free transport.

Of course, Mr Burnham could be really brave, and reintroduce the 1976 Education Act, associated with the late Shirely Williams, and require all secondary schools to be non-selective, except in few isolated cases of national schools for certain talents in music, ballet and dance. Mr Blair’s government never saw the need to make that change, but, perhaps, Mr Blunkett might now have his opportunity to make the change with such a large Labour majority at Westminster.

Free transport to 16, is good, but not good enough, please, make it free transport to 18, at least to an approved education facility.