The answer to this question comes down to your thoughts on the...

The answer to this question comes down to your thoughts on the ability of management to convert the spending into revenue.

Yes it may seem conservative to expense all the R&D. But if you do not account for this in your valuation exercises, then the company will appear to have higher values for metrics such as ROC, as capital has been kept lower by keeping R&D completely out of the balance sheet.
I don't think there is a problem with the way GLH is handling this issue, and infact it works well for me - as I tend to capitalise most R&D for business I invest in when I value them (if I didn't think they could convert R&D into sales I don't plan on investing).

Agree with you that the PE figure is misleading, which is why it is important to look at a variety of metrics...

So long as the company (and you) are consistent in the application of the treatment of this figure, you can make your own judgements and comparisons across companies within the same space.

Tracking R&D spend VS. revenue would be a good way to (overtime) get a good idea of managements capability to turn the spending to value.