That there is a S at the beginning of PIC doesn't mean it isn't PIC anymore does it?
The problem is that JAR-FCL 1.something doesn't require five full-stop landings and take-offs as PIC. They require them to be done SOLO. (BTW in LASORS the word PIC is used, but JAR-FCL talks about SOLO. -1 for LASORS.)
The Dutch authorities have made an exception to JAR-FCL in this respect so if you fly them as SPIC / P1/S or whatever it's called, it's accepted for the Dutch authorities to issue the NQ, and use them as the entry requirements for the IR course.
But the rest of the JAA world doesn't recognize this Dutch exception so if you have a license that's issued anywhere else, you're stuck. I have pointed the Dutch exception out to the UK CAA, but they simply pointed back to JAR-FCL, as that's their guidance document.
The fact that national authorities could grant exemptions from the JARs
It doesn't quite work that way, although in practice, I can imagine someone thinks so.
The JAA is a volunteer organization, founded by the National CAAs of the various countries. As such, the JAA itself has no legal basis whatsoever. They can come up with binders full of paperwork, but the individual countries have to use their own internal process to embed this into law. Sometimes the law simply points to the JAR-FCL text (which then becomes binding in that particular country), sometimes JAR-FCL is 1-on-1 transposed into law (with a possible translation in the local language), and sometimes it is made into law slightly differently from what JAR-FCL wrote down and/or intended.
As long as the difference between what ends up in the laws, and the original JAR-FCL text, is minor, nobody really cares. The result is that anything that happens under the guise of "JAR-FCL compliant" is implicitly recognized/accepted by the other JAA countries. But every now and then there are little corners of this framework where things don't quite work as advertised.
The Dutch way of doing the NQ is an example. Another was the fact that certain medicals (the German ones come to mind) were not accepted by the UK to fly on a UK-issued JAR-FCL PPL, even though they were OK in combination with a German-issued JAR-FCL PPL.
The idea behind EASA is that all of these national twists are going to disappear, as EASA is part of the EU and can pass directives which become law immediately. But that, of course, highlights these and a whole bunch of other issues that were swept under the rug in JAR-FCL, and now need to be sorted properly.