Jimlad, you put make your point as delicately as ever, Sir
. Seriously, though, I think you make some very good points. The whole point of allowances is to prevent anyone being 'out of pocket' due expenses incurred in the line of duty. Everything has to be caveated with the phrase 'within reason', or whatever official terminology is appropriate. One could even argue that employees, personnel, MPs, representatives (delete as appropriate) would have to feed themselves whether at home, at work or working elsewhere and, therefore, the only allowance should be for any extra cost incurred. But that would not be particularly reasonable so employes don't do that. Good.
During my latter days in the RAF, it wasn't so much the size of the allowances or caps that seemed to me to piss people off, it was the difficulties involved with simply getting your claim processed. Or, the subsequent audits or worse. There is a government requirement to check a percentage of claims (not just for the military), but that does not even have to a particularly intrusive process if done properly as I learned during my subsequent time working at the Open University.
But a lot of folk do, frequently, run into unnecessarily difficult obstacles, or worse, on occasions. And that is not reasonable. I for one was arrested twice and charged with fraud over claims. On both accounts I was acquitted, but the process took well over a year on one occasion. Imagine how enjoyable that was. Both instances could have been cleared up with the Cheif Clerk in ten minutes, but times had changed. Reasonable?
You are right that the system is fundamentally reasonable as long as people can submit reasonable claims with expectation that they will be paid without undue hassle, be they military, CS or otherwise, and that the system will treat people reasonably.
Have I used the term 'reasonable' enough to convey my meaning?
