A thought on a dilema that seems to be appearing from this debate. Take me for an example - I fly a moderate 90ish hours per year - so pretty current in general terms, am IMC qualified and current, but by most standards am a very inexperienced instrument pilot.
So, I turn up at an airfield with a couple of available IAPs; in adequate or good visual conditions. This happens reasonably regularly. Indeed, I tend to try and avoid flying when the weather is particularly poor, because it's less fun and usually I don't need to.
So, if every time I can, I fly a visual approach, the result is that I fly a genuine IAP 2-3 times per year.
On the other hand, fly an IAP when I can - which perhaps means I fly an average of 1-2 a month. Perhaps degrade my instrument flying performance a bit by maintaining a good lookout, or if I have a passenger give them a lookout role. This is certainly the approach I'm taking with my flying at the moment (although many airports do not seem to see why I want an IAP if the conditions are good for a visual approach, as others have mentioned).
Now, take the day I'm on a long trip into somewhere, the weather has deteriorated, and my route back is around my IMC minima - say 600ft cloudbase with an available ILS, and 2000m RVR. This is the day I really need my instrument flying skills.
If I've been flying an IAP a couple of times per year, I'm rusty, working extremely hard, and the potential for me to screw up is on the high side.
If I've been flying a couple per month, I'm sharper, more current, working less hard, and more likely to get the IAP right.
This to me makes a strong case for taking an IAP when one is available, to stay sharp, for the day you really require it. It is also an argument against the philosophy of the EIR where the "emergency instrument procedure" allowed for in the EASA philosophy will seldom if ever be practiced (and if it's in the annual IRT, will cause EIR holders to end up spending lots of money on training every year to get themselves back to test standard for their practice emergency IAP since they've had no ability to practice it otherwise).
Allow at-least an EIR to accept SIDs and IAPs when they can do so whilst remaining VMC below MSA, that way when they really need to make an IAP, there's a fighting chance they'll remember how to do it!
You may of-course get stung for approach fees - but I'm willing to bet that those approach fees will add up to less than the remedial training to get through the IRT/IMCRT renewal if the pilot hasn't been practicing.
G