You may be interested to know that there were many proposals made for the privileges and associated levels of training required for the sub-JAR/FCL PPL. We looked at a concept of a 'GH only' licence with pilots then being restricted to a certain radius from base. But this was seen as both unenforceable and non-conducive to noise pollution - since activities would be concentrated pretty well in the same areas.
Then we had a lengthy debate about the desireability or otherwise of night/IMC. In the end, it was agreed that there needed to be a clear demarcation; the NPPL would be 'simple, day VFR' and the next stage would be to upgrade to JAR/FCL PPL. This was agreed by those industry bodies representing their members and also the CAA.
So now we have a licence which will take a minimum of around 35 hours (32 plus 2 tests of about 1.5 hours) to complete. Looking back at my logbook for 1968, I see that I did precisely that then; yes, I had (as will many NPPL students) a little gliding time, but only an A and B certificate. We didn't do the Navigation Test, but we did an 'unseen' long cross-country with 2 intermediate landings - the first time I'd ever landed away from base! The NPPL covers the same general handling skills, the same basic navigation skills but tests rather better than I was tested on my PPL course - and all in about the same total of hours.
Some very experienced instructors and pilots have helped with the develoment of the NPPL; it is not a 'naff' PPL, it is merely returning the affordability of private day VFR flying to the levels of a few years ago whilst maintaining core safety levels.
Whilst name-calling and ill-informed comment will be generated by some and doubt will be cast by certain expensive flying schools who charge a fortune for the JAR/FCL PPL, the real feedback will only come when the demand for the new licence is assessed after a year or so.