"One cannot help but wonder who the "Stakeholder" was that persuaded EASA that there was a need for the LAPL/LPL in the first place."
Me for one. Let me explain why.
The scope of EASA rulemaking embraces licences for gliders and balloons, as well as aeroplanes and helicopters. JAA did not cover gliding and ballooning licences. Therefore EASA would need to design licences for these as well as transfer aeroplane and helicopter licences to EU legally enforceable rules drafted by EASA. Further JAR PPL (A) medical Class 2 was seen by many as unnecessarily 'high'. Remember the debate over 10 years go and hence the development of the UK NPPL with more attainable medical standards so that pilots who could not get the Class 2 could still fly?
The UK gliding movement has used medical standards akin to the UK NPPL (DVLA standards) for a long time and a lot of pilots are still flying as a result (see my earlier post re accident stats due to medical incapacitation - it's not a problem). So when faced with the prospect of an unknown EU licence for glider pilots - and balloon pilots - which might start life as similar to the parallel JAR PPL(A) with the associated medical - we decided we needed an EU licence comparable to the the UK NPPL and UK glider 'licence', for those who might not be able to meet the 'higher' medical. The proportionality argument.
The UK was not the only country that saw the risk in the regulatory developments and therefore a need for an EU licence comparable to their own NPPLs. And also those countries without an NPPL equivalent - here was an opportunity for a sensible entry level licence.
The Commission and EU Parliament accepted the reasoning in our representations, EASA supported it, and hence the Basic Regulation 216/2008 included the (then) 'LPL' concept - now renamed LAPL after considerable lobbying from many of us for the name change.
Now if you want to ignore the LAPL and just have an ICAO compliant PPL(A), PPL(H), PPL(B) or SPL then fine. But if at any stage of your aviation career you cannot meet the medical standards for these, what will you do? Give up? Equally, for those wanting to take up private flying and they can't meet the more stringent medical standards, why should they not have a LAPL?
Not everyone with a fan on the front wants four bars on his epaulette as he progresses to an airline job. The politicians saw the sense in having licences appropriate to the activity and not just (as the JAA saw it) a stepping stone to a commerical licence.
Now of course not all the draft rules for the LAPL are perfect. Nor are certain 'interested parties' willing to contemplate GPs doing the medical assessment. But the Parliament passed 216 with a clause to the effect that GPs can do this where national rules permit. So countries without a parallel GP system to the UK (access to patient's medical records etc) are not obliged to adopt this route. But those countries that do want to, can. The corruption of the original intent, by adding extra qualifications for GPs in the latest draft, has to be seen off.
The LAPL syllabus etc is all quite sensible and acceptable, by and large. It was never going to be a word for word transcript of a UK system, because there are 26 other countries involved to greater or lesser degrees. But speaking primarily as a glider pilot I am reasonably content with it overall, apart from the tweaks needed for the medical process and the need for clear mitigating measures. But maybe that's because, with my colleagues in the European Gliding Union, we drafted the rules which by and large are adopted in FCL. Who was it who said 'Don't bring me problems, bring me solutions'? Eisenhower I think. I did not see any equivalent effort from the power flying fraternity adopting this approach.