Beagle, I'm disappointed in that response, and feel let down by the NPPL committee (and the CAA have likewise lived down to my expectations)
It's frankly rubbish to say that because a number of people agreed with the BMAA response then their veiws should not be taken into account. A hundred pilots saying that an idea is stupid should carry more weight than one saying the same thing. What is the point of the RIA if the output does not have to be justified against the comments submitted?
It's highly disengenuous to say that dual training is a choice. My syndicate partner and I can fly off together with him as P1 on his PPL, but then he has to take the train back after lunch because I can only fly solo on an NPPL! In fact it's worse than that, because I have to take the seat out and he has to take that back on the train with him!
'Coughing up' as you say to fly with a FI will add a cost to flying. An hours instruction costs an hour - whether I do it in 60, minute sessions or an hour at a go. In any event, the money isn't necessarily the point. You said that the safety statistics were taken into account. I'd be very interested in seeing those statistics that prove that NPPL holding pilots are more prone to accidents than those holding a PPL, and that lack of regular instructional flights was a causal factor. Perhaps you'd like to back up that statement. It doesn't seem to be shared by the BMAA or the panel of microlight examiners.
In the meantime, I too, feel shafted by a group that seems to have based a decision on envy that modern microlights outperform older Group A.