MPs reckon they were victims of the furore

London: Members of Parliament have complained that the expenses scandal has reduced them to the role of "petty accounting clerks".

Despite massive criticism of the level of their taxpayer-funded allowances, some told the standards watchdog they were victims of the furore.

One insisted that making huge profits from selling taxpayer- subsidised homes was a "victimless crime", while another claimed parliamentary expenses were "back-door pay" meant as consolation for forgoing salary increases.

One backbencher even said they should not have to submit receipts with their claims.

Eric Illsley, Labour MP for Barnsley Central, said: "This makes MPs into petty accounting clerks."

Critics say it proves many in the Commons have learned nothing from the expenses scandal, which forced a number of MPs to stand down.

The submissions were made to the Committee on Standards in Public Life, chaired by Sir Christopher Kelly, which is redrawing the rules on allowances.

After he launched an inquiry into the discredited system in June, Sir Christopher lambasted MPs for "exploiting" expenses for "personal gain", and "lacking principles" rather than displaying selflessness, honesty and integrity. But some MPs insisted they had been helped to submit large claims by the Commons Fees Office, which processed their expenses.

In a letter to Sir Christopher, Illsley - who claimed the maximum £400 a month for groceries - said it was not MPs' fault that they put in such huge claims.

"It cannot be right to maintain that MPs should not have claimed this money after being encouraged to by the Fees Office," he wrote.

Adrian Bailey, Labour MP for West Bromwich West, who claimed 77p for a light bulb and £1.65 for shampoo, said: "The most legitimate items of expenditure are now represented as some sort of outrageous claim on the public purse.

"The system is not adequate to cover the costs of spending 150 days or so a year in central London and run a home." Others said the high claims were not MPs' fault because they had been encouraged to make them in lieu of pay rises. A number of MPs also spoke out against the ban on employing family members.