It strikes me that some of these proposals are still somewhat different from the JAR-FCL1 equivalents, even though they bring the NPPL closer into line. Where such differences can be justified by the nature of the task, fine. But if they're arbitrary, then they should be aligned.
To revalidate NPPL aircraft Class Ratings, licence holders must, in the 2 year period, complete 12 hours total flight time, including 8 hours as PIC and 12 take-offs and landings. If they wish to carry passengers, a total of not less than 1 hour of accumulated training flying must also be included within these 12 hours and the licence holder must maintain 90 day recency.
If 2 or more NPPL aircraft Class Ratings are held, the 12 hours experience and 12 take-offs and landings can include flight time in any of such aircraft for which a Class Rating is held, but a minimum of 1 hour (either PIC or PU/T) must be flown on aircraft of each Class.
For a JAR-FCL1 PPL,
* it's 6 hours as PIC -- I can't see a reason for insisting on more from an NPPL holder.
* a training flight is required whether passengers are to be carried or not -- perhaps this difference is justified because of the higher proportion of single seaters flown by NPPLs? But the principle of a training flight seems like a good one.
* the training flight must be at least one hour in length (not accumulated) -- this difference seems reasonable, given typically shorter flights in NPPL flown aircraft
* the holder can combine SEP and TMG time with no minimum for each, and IIUC the microlight and SLMG privileges require only one-off differences training -- if the NPPL classes are really so different from each other, shouldn't there be separate 12-hour revalidation requirments for each? -- and if they're not so different, why insist on this minimum one hour in each?