But this also means focus is on the use on GPS as a simple Go-To navaid - still missing from this is that the modern GPS (GNS430/530 or even better, 480) are approaching FMS-like capabilities, especially with good autopilot integration, and sensible and proper use of flight planning and other more advanced functions is neither trained nor examined - which is just as well, otherwise we probably would need a "type rating" for Garmin x30, another one for the x80, and another one for King...
Well that's what they do on an FAA IR checkride, and people don't have a problem with it there.
IMHO it is very wrong for the CAA to not examine the pilot on this kind of kit. In typical IFR flight, one uses the GPS as primary nav source, with the filed route programmed into it, and one flies with the autopilot coupled to the GPS.
That gives you the lowest cockpit workload, and plenty of time to keep an eye on everything.
Much of the time, there is no navaid that one can use on a typical airways flight. One is outside the DOC of the VOR/DME which terminates the current airway. Also ATC often give you a DCT to a waypoint which may be a real VOR but again it may be 250nm away so you can't receive it. This is why BRNAV capability is essential and a GPS is the only way to do this (in the GA context; airliners do it with an FMS with INS input).
Loading a route into a GPS is easy and should be examined, together with the DCT function which is also widely used in the airways environment.
If you don't teach and examine proper enroute GPS usage, then you are just turning out pilots who have an IR but can't go anywhere with it, except maybe Bournemouth to Cranfield or Oxford, etc.