Spin taken off the PPL syllabus because more accidents in practice than through accidents? Show me the proof - nobody has to date.
According to Dunstan Hadley's 'Only seconds to live' the proportion of stall/spin accidents as a proportion of fatal accidents fell from 49% to less than 13% in the 31 year period following 1949 when spins were removed from the US syllabus. (page 153)... but it's a somewhat indirect way of answering the question, and covers a period where aircraft spin resistance improved greatly. All the academic sources I can find online seem to discuss this as a possible cause for the improvement and complain that prior to the 1960s, accident statistics are nearly unavailable even in the states.
On page 198, IKAC Wilson, representing the CAA, is quoted as saying specifically that CAA stopped requiring stalls because 'The statistics indicated that more accidents resulted from intentional rather than unintentional spinning' but doesn't provide those statistics. Perhaps they were never made public
There's also circumstantial evidence looking at training in different countries: 'In 1981, Canada's stall/spin accidents associated with training amounted to twice the total stall/spin accident rate in the US' (Collins, October 1987, Flying, pp 60-62).
Personally I did my few spins with an instructor because I wanted to experience a spin, rather than because I thought it would make me a safer pilot - though it may have done.