I'm not sure that I should intervene between Bose and IO, but I see this from a 3rd perspective.
All those years ago when I got my PPL, I discovered within a couple of months that whatever the forecast, it is irresponsible to use an aircraft to get about the UK without an instrument cabability. I got my IMCR soonest, and continue to have this view. This rating fulfills the need perfectly if there is no intention of airways flying. The test, repeated every 2 years, requires you to fly for more than an hour entirely on instruments, and navigate, fly holding patterns and two different approaches, and fly safely with the A/H and DI covered up, even when faced with recovery from unusual attitudes. Nearly all airports are in class D airspace, which allows the IMCR holder to use these facilities to the full when the runway RVR is more that 1800m. The safety, not accuracy, of flying on instruments is identical for IMCR and IR.
I now fly a permit very hot ship, and so never(?) fly in cloud. Last Monday I flew a lovely trip to Guernsey for lunch, without any relevent cloud for the whole trip. But in comfortably legal VFR the 'goldfish bowl' vis meant that it was impossible to fly at a sensible height for nearly all the trip both ways except entirely on instruments. Also, its a legal requirement to have an IMCR or IR to fly SVFR in the Class A Jersey zone in less that 10k vis (it was 6k on Mon, even though the last TAF and METAR I could get before departure was '9999'.
My point is that it would be dreadful if an 'easier' PPL/IR to enable airways flight lost us our invaluable IMCR.
And why, WHY, cannot an NPPL get an IMCR, even though both are solely UK facilities, if he(she) can pass the training and test? Is this yet another case of CAA b*****y mindedness? Let alone the requirement for a fully equipped permit aircraft to fly only VFR.
(Incidently, I have passed the ground exams for PPL/IR, but that was when it could be done by correspondence course)
MikeJ