Verbatim report of proceedings

Tuesday, 22 February 2005 - Strasbourg

14. Driving licences

  President. The next item is the report (A6-0016/2005) by Mr Grosch, on behalf of the Committee on Transport and Tourism, on driving licences.

  Barrot, Vice-President of the Commission. (FR) Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, on 21 October 2003, the Commission adopted a proposal for a directive on driving licences, which you will debate in a moment.

There are currently more than 110 different models of driving licences, some granting different rights, that are valid and in circulation in the Member States. In an open area in which freedom of movement of citizens is the rule, the consequences of this situation are clear. It is difficult to carry out checks on the licences, the public authorities have problems making sense of them, and citizens often have problems with their driving licences not being recognised. This situation is no longer acceptable.

The directive proposed by the Commission has three main objectives: protecting against fraud, freedom of movement and road safety. In terms of protection against fraud, the Commission proposes eliminating the paper model. From the date of application of the directive, the only Community model that can be used will be the plastic card. This will also help to reduce the number of models in circulation. The Member States will be able to insert a microchip into the driving licence that will, of course, only contain the information on the plastic card and will not be able to be used for other purposes. This will help to increase protection against fraud.

The Commission also proposes introducing a period of validity for the licence that is limited in time. This administrative period of validity, which will be ten years for car and motorcycle licences, will mean that each time it is renewed, the fraud protection elements can be updated and that a recent photo can appear on the document. This is the real way to avoid a similar situation to the one we have now.

The introduction of the limited period of validity will enable us to remove the final obstacle to free movement in this area. Citizens who settle in another Member State will therefore no longer be faced with validity periods that vary from one Member State to another. This is the element that, along with the harmonisation of the licence model, will enable us to remove obstacles to free movement.

The Commission’s proposal also aims to improve road safety. For this purpose, the Commission proposes introducing a new category of driving licence for mopeds. Moped drivers are the youngest people on the road driving motor vehicles. They are also particularly vulnerable, as all the statistics show, as they have a proportionally much higher involvement in accidents than other road users. The Commission also proposes regulating access to driving the most powerful motorbikes on a progressive basis, doing the same for HGVs and the most powerful coaches, harmonising the frequency of medical examinations for professional drivers and introducing minimum requirements for initial qualification and continuous training for driving licence examiners.

Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, here is an ambitious proposal for improving road safety, ensuring freedom of movement and combating driving licence fraud. It will have a clear impact on many citizens for whom a driving licence is a guarantee of mobility and freedom of movement and an identification document for everyday life.

  Grosch (PPE-DE), rapporteur. – (DE) Madam President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I should like to start by thanking all those involved – not only the Commission and Parliament’s administration, but also my fellow Members. Over the past few months, work on the directive on driving licences has been marked by a desire to achieve coherence and to engage in extensive dialogue. The reason for this is that the varying opinions that have emerged on this issue have resulted from differences in outlook between the individual countries, rather than from party politics.

(FR) This is why, Commissioner, I wish to thank the Commission for its clear advice, as well as everyone who has worked very hard on this subject.

(DE) While seeking consensus and coherence, we also considered it important that this whole instrument should be of public benefit, affecting as it does, after all, almost two thirds of the adult population of Europe. This is precisely why we chose to go a little further: instead of 111 driving licences plus a European model, the proposal tabled by the Committee on Transport and Tourism envisages a reduction to one single European driving licence within a reasonable time frame of about ten or twenty years.

This naturally has a certain symbolic value, but it also offers the advantage of simplifying roadside checks; simplified checks, of course, are consistent with the fight against crime and fraud – and we are all familiar with the problem of licence tourism in Europe; the Internet is full of pages devoted to it, which is why this is a matter for the Member States too. The point is that, if we have a single driving licence and can therefore simplify and centralise data in the Member States, and if the latter are also willing to cooperate in exchanging these data, this will surely go some way towards curbing fraud and improving mobility in Europe.

The public also gain added value from legal certainty. Far from wishing to encroach upon acquired rights, we seek to reinforce them. We also want to ensure that those who drive for a living do not lose their rights when they move home, for example, as we have seen from some of the complaints lodged with the Commission. The proposal would also benefit people who travel from one country to another as tourists and who would like their rights to be recognised wherever they go.

We have also opted to refrain from any age discrimination and have therefore left it up to the Member States to introduce medical or other purely preventive tests as they see fit. I firmly believe, however, that the rules already established in several countries will spread to others.

Another benefit is increased road safety; in this respect, the draft directive follows the Commission line in its reliance on basic training. Basic training is the fundamental element, but it does not interfere in any way with systems of advanced training. In this respect we have sought consistency with the Directive on the initial qualification and periodic training of drivers of certain road vehicles for the carriage of goods or passengers, be it for bus drivers or for HGV drivers.

Another example is our solution to the problem of campers and caravans, which lies in appropriate training rather than the introduction of a complex B+E licence; in this way, we take due account of tourism, which plays an important part, as we all know, in the development of the European economy.

A step-up approach with regard to motorcyclists is also a feature of the underlying philosophy, and in your introduction, Mr Vice-President, you referred to the universally recognised fact that more efforts can and must be made in this direction. There are still more than 40 000 deaths on our roads, and while the number of deaths in car accidents is falling, the same cannot be said, regrettably, for motorcycle accidents, which continue to claim an alarmingly high number of lives.

This is why we have adopted the step-up approach, but we do not intend to base this on theory tests. We have opted for training, and accordingly we intend to enable those Member States which prefer to set a younger minimum age to guarantee legal certainty in this respect for their citizens, but their systems would have to be graduated as prescribed in the draft directive. We do not wish to challenge the traditions of a number of countries in this domain, traditions rooted in factors such as mobility requirements and economic conditions, but we do wish to pursue a general strategy based on a European average age and a system of progressive training.

There are equivalence problems, and these will not go away. What we have done is to launch an initial attempt to cover three- and four-wheeled vehicles too, but we are also aware that the inherent problems cannot be resolved overnight. For my own part, I still believe that it would be ill-advised to cover cars and motorcycles with the same licence, because they require two very different sets of driving skills, even though it might be a means of improving mutual understanding between motorists and motorcyclists.

To sum up, then: simplification, legal certainty, road safety and the suppression of fraud are the main elements we sought to emphasise in our proposal. Finally, let me reiterate my thanks to all my fellow Members for their great goodwill and cooperation over the past few months.

  Jarzembowski (PPE-DE), on behalf of the PPE-DE Group. – (DE) Madam President, Mr Vice-President of the Commission, ladies and gentlemen, the Group of the European People’s Party (Christian Democrats) and European Democrats wishes to congratulate the rapporteur, Mr Grosch, on his excellent report on the Commission’s proposal for a third Directive on driving licences. He has presented detailed proposals for improvements relating to the future introduction of a uniform European driving licence and, most importantly, has drawn up people-friendly provisions, such as those dealing with caravans and campers. He has also tabled clear proposals for improvements in the realm of so-called driving-licence tourism. The cause of road safety is not served by allowing someone whose licence has been revoked with good reason to obtain a new one immediately in a neighbouring country. In this respect, Mr Grosch has made an excellent job of fleshing out the principle of eliminating licence tourism.

There are, however, two points in the report which my group rejects. Like the Commission, Mr Vice-President, we oppose the compulsory exchange of existing driving licences. Road safety is not improved in any way by making people go to a public authority, have a new photograph taken and be issued with a new licence document. At best, such an arrangement facilitates police checks, but it does nothing to improve road safety. If the benefit of simpler police checks is compared with the trouble and inconvenience to which drivers would be put – tens of thousands of them, if not more, who will never drive in another EU country would still be required to obtain a new licence – the inconvenience outweighs any benefits, and my group joins the Commission in opposing such a provision.

The second point we reject in the report relates to the compulsory limitation of the validity of licence documents. This does nothing to enhance road safety either. It only means that people have to go to the authorities, have a new photograph taken and be issued with a new licence document, even though, as the rapporteur rightly recognises, the authorisation resulting from the original driving test remains valid.

I ask you, ladies and gentlemen, to help us by supporting our position for the sake of the people of Europe. We do not want the compulsory exchange of driving licences, and we do not want any limitation of their validity.

  Hedkvist Petersen (PSE), on behalf of the PSE Group. (SV) Madam President, Commissioner, firstly, I wish to thank Mr Grosch for his excellent cooperation and his very constructive method of working on the process of producing the committee’s proposal. All the political groups participated, and we are grateful for their having done so.

It is a matter, in this case, of shuttling between traditions and differences in the various Member States, but without losing sight of the objective, namely that of increasing people’s mobility in the EU and promoting road safety. It is now a question of embarking upon the long road towards a driving licence for the whole of the EU. This will take many years, but it is important for old driving licences to be replaced. The reason for this is the need to put a stop to driving licence tourism whereby driving licences are lost and new ones bought. We now have 110 varieties of licence, and the police cannot check whether a driving licence that might be confiscated, or one that they see, is genuine.

In Sweden, a situation existed a few years ago in which you could go into a back-street printer’s and buy a driving licence from your old country of origin and then go to the relevant Swedish authority and exchange the licence for a Swedish one. That is unacceptable, and we cannot have such a situation. I therefore think that the Council of Ministers needs to approve the replacement of old driving licences. It will take 60 years before we have an acceptable situation if we have to comply with the proposal by the Group of the European People’s Party (Christian Democrats) and European Democrats. That is not to be tolerated. Change is vitally important for us as fellow road users, for we too are out and about on the roads and we want to know that the driving licences that exist are genuine. Where doctors or pilots are concerned, we should never accept a situation in which we did not know whether their papers and knowledge were genuine.

The Socialist Group in the European Parliament supports the greater part of the committee’s proposal. We do not think that endless doctors’ examinations of healthy drivers, as proposed by the Commission, are a good idea. Europe’s doctors must be used to treat people who are ill and for work in the health sphere, not for checking up on every driver. It is of course self-evident that doctors’ examinations and sight tests should be required when driving licences are issued.

Where mopeds and motorcycles are concerned, we in the PSE Group wish to encourage training and tests in a situation where drivers begin with mopeds and then advance through the classes of driving licence. We also want the Member States to be able to introduce rules concerning people’s having direct access, within those Member States, to heavy motorcycles when they reach the age of 21. National exemptions are accepted for cars and mopeds, and we therefore believe that this should also be the case for motorcycles. Where caravans and motorised campers are concerned, we share Mr Grosch’s position.

Finally, the development we anticipate is one in which more and more cars are equipped with safety devices such as alcohol locks and reminders to drivers to fasten their seat belts and switch their lights on. This is encouraged by the European Commission and by safety organisations. We must, therefore, also help produce a basic document entitling people to drive vehicles: a driving licence that is genuine, reliable and up-to-date.

  Sterckx (ALDE), on behalf of the ALDE Group. – (NL) Madam President, Commissioner, I have to congratulate the rapporteur, whose task was incredibly difficult and who was dealing with something that affects nearly all citizens but was at the same time very technical, with many details and large differences between Member States. His task was made all the more difficult because, although everyone may accept the principles and agree that the system should be simplified and better monitored and such like, no one is actually prepared to give up national differences. We use each other’s roads more and more, which means that we must trust each other to a greater extent in the documents we issue to drivers, but the issuing of those documents is still considered a kind of strategic, almost military secret within every Member State, where the seals must therefore be closely guarded. I think, Mr Grosch, that this must make your assignment all the more difficult, and it has not made our job any easier either.

My group agrees on the evident need for the introduction of a European model, and we believe that this should be done as quickly as possible, with regular administrative updates. We are, however, opposed to the introduction of additional tests. They are administrative updates, after all, and it would not be fair on the elderly. Besides, the statistics do not bear out the need for them.

There is no evidence anywhere to suggest that the elderly are particularly unsafe drivers. Moreover, we should not make it more difficult for them to drive cars, which are, for very many older people, simply a lifeline. The same must apply to those in poor health. Ideally, the decision to drive a car or not should be a joint decision taken by a patient and his GP, with the GP judging in good conscience whether or not that person is still able to drive a car, and the patient should respect that decision.

I think that the principle we need to adhere to is not to draft European rules that are too detailed, to impose general principles as is the case in your report and take the decision as close to the citizen as possible. The Committee of European Experts can continue and do their work by all means, but I think that the work should ideally be done as closely to the public as possible.

Our group has tabled a few amendments to bring driving licences for mopeds and motorcycles into line with the tradition in the Member States and not to be too restrictive in this. We support the general thrust of Mr Grosch’s report, which we see, at any rate, as a major step forward. We are moving towards better scope for control within the European Union. In time, we will explain to the citizens that they have licences allowing them to drive a car or motorcycle, or such like, across the entire Union. In the Union, we will be able to rely on the tests set in the different Member States. Therefore, we have certainty that anyone who is given such a licence is a good driver of a moped, a motorcycle, a car or a lorry. I think that the public will come to realise that the European Union also serves very concrete purposes. I think that your report is a step in the right direction, and for that I should like to thank you.

  Auken (Verts/ALE), on behalf of the Verts/ALE Group. – (DA) Madam President, I should firstly like to thank Mr Grosch for a really constructive piece of work and to congratulate him on this. We have listened to each other, and I think we are now in a situation in which it is also apparent that arguments have played a helpful role. I think that some sterling work has been done, and I also think it splendid that Mr Grosch has shifted attention away from some rather abstract fight against terrorism, or whatever it was to begin with, to the issue of road safety and of the real terror we have in Europe whereby the number of people killed and maimed on our roads is equivalent to the number of casualties that would occur if one jumbo jet per week were to crash, killing everyone on board. It is really important that we get something done about this, and a prior condition – or one of the prior conditions – for getting something done is, of course, that we have driving licences that can be checked up on and that are recognised throughout Europe.

I think it excellent that we have not subjected our elderly people to more tests. It is good that, in this House too, we recognised that most of them are, of course, outstanding motorists who compensate for their reduced reaction times by driving carefully. If only fit and healthy people would put careful driving before over-confidence.

There was one point we found it very difficult to understand. There are countries – and I do not believe that the whole of the Group of the European People’s Party (Christian Democrats) and European Democrats fall into this camp – that apparently attach inordinate value to their driving licences. I think they should take a much more relaxed attitude to their old driving licences instead of cherishing them as if they were things that cannot be exchanged. In that way, we should obtain a driving licence we can use in the rest of Europe. There is no sign of driving licences being exchanged. We tried it in Denmark, and it worked. The world did not come to an end.

  Chruszcz (IND/DEM), on behalf of the IND/DEM Group.  (PL) Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, I should like to congratulate Mr Grosch on his work, which I believe will continue to pay dividends for a long time to come. At the same time, however, there is another point I should like to make. This House frequently favours unnecessary regulations and a surplus of details, thus making issues that are simple and obvious needlessly complex. One of the reasons for this may well be that the European Parliament is an EU institution.

Many European countries, including my country, Poland, already issue perfectly good driving licences equipped with a great many security features, and paper driving licences are in any case being gradually replaced. Training for learner drivers is also constantly improving, and countries are learning a great deal from each other. This is why I am concerned to hear that many citizens in EU Member States will have to undergo the ordeal of exchanging their driving licence yet again. In my opinion the inclusion of microchips and the frequent exchange of driving licences as proposed by Mr Grosch entails unnecessary expense. It would also be a waste of time for the citizens, who would prefer to do anything else rather than stand in a queue waiting for a licence to be issued.

Finally, I should like to point out that, in my view, official restrictions that determine whether foreigners may apply for and be issued with driving licences are incompatible with the principle of the free movement of persons. A distinction should be made between those who have committed an offence in their own country and are attempting to acquire a new driving licence in another country, and those who live in border regions and prefer to choose a better and cheaper driving school on the other side of the border.

  Zīle (UEN) on behalf of the UEN Group. (LV) Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, I would also like to begin my speech by thanking Mr Grosch for his fine leadership of this project under difficult circumstances. As a representative of a new Member State, this situation with driving licences actually came as a big surprise to me since in Latvia, my country, we started issuing plastic licences of the size of a credit card two years after regaining independence. Speaking personally, ten years of using my first plastic licence have already expired, and I replaced it last year with a new one displaying the European Union symbol. Because of this it is relatively difficult for me to understand why the representatives of some states find it politically impossible to say that paper licences should be replaced with plastic licences. If Latvia was able to do this then in my view other states can do it too. And if we have a common internal market and free movement of the labour force, it is difficult to understand why we cannot adopt a unified system for obtaining driving licences, health requirements and similar matters, since any European Union driver may cause problematic traffic situations in any other European Union state. It also seems to me that on the issue of microchips and their use, both the Commission and Parliament could have been stricter and could have retained an obligation to introduce them in the foreseeable future. I very much hope that tomorrow we will vote in favour of this commendable draft directive at first reading.

  Romagnoli (NI). – (IT) Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, we are debating in plenary an issue on which much time has been spent by the Committee on Transport and Tourism and the rapporteur, Mr Grosch, whom I thank for his diligent and timely report, with which I am largely, although not wholly, in agreement.

Mr Sterckx stated that we all agreed with the aim of having a single EU format, although some differences undoubtedly exist. He was referring, in particular, to administrative renewal of licences for the elderly. In my view, this is an area which, in general, requires greater attention. By way of example: I fly a totally harmless machine, one which does not even have an engine. I believe that in the event of an accident, the only victim would be myself and, at most, one other person. Despite that, I am required, in Italy, to take out compulsory insurance, undergo a medical examination every two years and submit to a raft of administrative and other requirements which, frankly, appear excessive when compared to the level of danger to society represented by a motor vehicle which, in the event of an accident, can cause carnage. Accordingly, we have to be very careful.

The issue is, therefore, to harmonise an area with significant consequences on the lives of citizens and with obvious social implications for motorists’ behaviour. Thus, we need to harmonise not only a document – it is not just a question of switching from a paper licence to a plastic one – but also people’s performance at the wheel. To this end, we need to ensure that police are able to identify with certainty a driver who may be infringing the Highway Code.

I should also like to mention particularly the amendments submitted jointly with some fellow Members concerning the introduction of the AM licence for mopeds. I believe we should be grateful to users of 2-wheeled means of transport because, particularly in countries in southern Europe, they contribute to resolving serious traffic problems, help our environment and improve the quality of life in towns and cities, particularly those with an older, more traditional urban fabric.

All dangerous behaviour must be punished and prevented, and there is no shortage of ways of achieving this. However, penalising two-wheeled traffic, which this directive does in part, will, in my view, damage not only our economies but also the quality of life in general.

  Queiró (PPE-DE). – (PT) I should like to begin by congratulating Mr Grosch on his report and by saying that my main concern in this debate on the future adoption of a European driving licence is that a good idea should not be spoiled by excessive regulation leading to more obligations and obstacles for drivers in the EU.

The idea is a good one. Given that European citizens are enjoying increasing freedom of movement, it is necessary to harmonise basic rules intended to foster safety on the roads, to prevent fraud due to the improper use of false licences and to prevent drivers who have been penalised in one country from easily obtaining a new licence in another.

Presented in this way, this is a simple message, which will be easily understood by those it is intended for and will be heeded by the public without any difficulty.

The problem arises when a good idea, an obviously welcome political initiative, is undermined by the temptation to regulate. What we must avoid, when it comes to beneficial measures such as this one, is an increase in regulatory and bureaucratic constraints and in financial costs for EU drivers, when such steps are always debatable. We must also ensure that no national limitations are created for those learning to ride other vehicles, such as motorcycles. Otherwise, the subsidiarity principle – and respect for practices that have been legitimately established by the authorities in the Member States – will not be duly taken into account. This would then result, in one way or another, in obstacles – sometimes imperceptible ones – being in the way of all European citizens seeking to enjoy their right to drive, regardless of all of the statements to the contrary that we shall all no doubt make.

These were the underlying reasons why I supported a range of amendments to the report before us, all of which were drawn up with the aim of making life easier for the public and for the various road sector operators and, at the same time, with the aim of promoting safer road transport. I shall conclude by saying that the most significant of the four European freedoms is freedom of movement.

  Piecyk (PSE). – (DE) Madam President, I am pleased that you are chairing this sitting, because I know that you are a very careful and safe driver and that you are greatly interested in the whole question of road safety.

It is a regrettable fact that skulduggery, cheating and forgery take place in the EU in connection with driving licences. These activities are made easier by the 110 different licence models that are currently in use in the European Union, and let us be honest: we need look no further for an example than Germany, where many drivers still have the collector’s item we call the grey rag; some of these have even paid the occasional visit to a washing machine. The limp grey card with its youthful photograph may be a cherished memento in the eyes of its owner, but it is certainly an inadequate form of identification for roadside checks.

As you know, I started my working life as a police officer; what is a poor policeman in Palermo, Bordeaux or Madrid to do when he stops a vehicle and is shown a tatty piece of scrap paper that is no longer of any use to anyone? If we expect young people to be issued with a plastic-card driving licence today, it is absolutely reasonable to expect other people to exchange their droopy old paper documents within the lengthy transition period that the rapporteur’s very sound proposal prescribes.

Let me say to Mr Jarzembowski that to call this compulsory exchange Zwangsumtausch in German is a very emotive thing to do, for the term is associated with the dictatorial regime in the German Democratic Republic, which compelled visitors entering the country to exchange deutschmarks for East German currency. We have to mind our terminology when we discuss European rules; a little care will keep the communication process on an objective level.

As I said, the rapporteur has presented a very good proposal, and for that I thank him.

My final point has already been mentioned. We must put an end once and for all to driving-licence tourism. If a person has his or her licence withdrawn in Germany today and does not pass the subsequent medical and psychological test, known colloquially in Germany as the idiots’ test, that person can go to the Czech Republic or elsewhere and obtain a new driving licence at little cost by pulling a residence trick. This situation cannot go on indefinitely here in Europe. We want to put an end to it with this directive, which is why I hope that, in tomorrow’s vote, Mr Grosch will be given a large majority, including the backing of the Group of the European People’s Party (Christian Democrats) and European Democrats.

  Costa, Paolo (ALDE). – (IT) Madam President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I have already welcomed the Commission’s initiative and Mr Grosch’s report aiming at harmonising the rules regarding driving licences, and I welcome them again. We agree on the objectives of preventing licence fraud and above all of implementing a measure that will facilitate free movement for the citizens of the Union and contribute to improved road safety.

Nowadays, it is very easy for Europeans to move around and to share Europe’s roads. It is no longer acceptable to conceive of Europeans who have been granted their driving licences under different rules, having fulfilled very different requirements, driving on the same roads. This is a classic case where the principle of subsidiarity is substantially inapplicable. I am referring in particular to the roads in my country, Italy, throughout the summer.

We cannot have rules that are applied in different ways just because they apply to different individuals and contexts. The Europe of motorists and of road haulage is today one of the most successfully integrated aspects of Europe, and it requires harmonised, if not uniform measures.

In relation to road safety and the target that the Union has set itself of halving the number of road accident deaths by 2010, if the driving licence issuing and renewal system were to contribute even just minimally to improving people’s driving knowledge and skills and to keeping a check on drivers’ mental and physical conditions, if it were even to make the tiniest contribution to improving road safety in Europe, it would definitely be welcome.

It is for that reason – and certainly not for love of pointless red tape – that we should emphasise and support the idea of making the new licences subject to regular renewal and calling for existing ones to be gradually replaced as well; it is for that reason that we should agree on the idea of combining compulsory training with equally compulsory testing to ensure that driving skills are acquired and maintained; and it is for that reason that we should agree on the idea of making the issuing and renewal of licences subject to checks that potential drivers meet minimum standards of mental and physical health.

While common sense demands that we should be moving towards uniform rules in all such areas, one area where differences could possibly be allowed on the basis of subsidiarity might be motorcycle licences, which are issued in varying numbers in the various countries of the Union. In that respect, I believe it should be noted that in some countries people are allowed access to small motorcycles at a younger age than in others. That factor helps to improve people’s mobility in historic city centres and may favour the development of a system of progressive access to increasingly powerful motorcycles, which is one of the most valuable aspects of the directive in question.

That is why I think that we could also let category B licences be equivalent to category AM licences, so that car drivers could always ride motorcycles as well in major historic city centres.

  Lichtenberger (Verts/ALE). – (DE) Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, let me also begin my speech by thanking Mr Grosch once again, in particular for the well-balanced nature of his proposals with regard to the prescribed amount of regulation, because this provided a platform from which we were able to reach a very broad consensus on many points.

I find it hard, on the other hand, to understand the attitude of the conservatives or that of Mr Jarzembowski, who wants to burden the changeover to a European driving licence with a transition period of seventy years. I ask you! If we were talking about a rule concerning the single market, a transition period in excess of ten years would not be contemplated for a single minute. In this matter we are seeing far too many signs of movement towards a rather cheap form of populism.

There is, however, another point I should like to add. We should bear in mind that basic and advanced training will have to be a central and important objective.

(The President cut off the speaker)

  Blokland (IND/DEM). – (NL) Madam President, when people have acquired the right to drive a motor vehicle, they should, normally speaking, retain that right for as long as there are no physical or legal objections to them doing so. I do not think that this House is in any doubt about that.

What we do question is the form in which the citizens are faced with this, more specifically, the standards for acquiring and retaining that right in the form of driving licences. In addition, driving licences often function as a form of identification, which means that verification aspects are important. I take the view that we should be very careful about establishing someone’s identity, certainly in the case of unknown people. The improper use of ID does not always prove conducive to a sustainable society. That is why it is vital that ID cards should be up-to-date, both visually and technologically speaking.

In my view, driving ability can considerably contribute to reducing the number of road victims. Since reduction starts with prevention, it is of vital importance for drivers, both physically and mentally, to be able to take part in traffic effectively. It is quite acceptable for this to be subjected to requirements, for all drivers. These requirements should guarantee the holders’ capability. Mr Grosch’ report puts my mind at ease on that score, and for that I am grateful.

  Mote (NI). – Madam President, if the Germans have a problem with their driving licences, what is to stop the German Government from sorting it out? Equally, if we are talking about road safety, what is to stop the Portuguese and Italian Governments from improving road safety on their roads? We in the UK have some of the most crowded and some of the safest roads anywhere in western Europe. Yet we are now faced with the prospect of harmonising driving licences, and this report makes clear that harmonising penalties for driving offences cannot be far behind.

When you look at the disgraceful treatment of legitimate tourists in Greece on a plane-spotting holiday, we now know just what pan-European Union justice can mean! That affected only a few unfortunate individuals, but almost everyone in Britain drives a car. If national courts are given powers to impose penalties on drivers' licences issued in other countries, the prospect of a Greek court banning, or attempting to ban, a British driver from driving in Britain will cause a row the like of which even you have not yet experienced from Britain!

  President. Ladies and gentlemen, as you know, we have to hold Question Time now. I must therefore adjourn the debate at this point. It will be resumed this evening at 9.00 p.m.

IN THE CHAIR: MR OUZKÝ
Vice-President