It is disappointing to see John Parry adding to misinformation about asylum seekers (June 7) when he links "big improvements in welfare benefits" to a rise in numbers of applications.

While the arguments about asylum are complex, the facts on benefits entitlement are straightforward.

At the start of 1996, asylum seekers had access to the normal benefits system and received payments at 90 per cent of the rates for the rest of the population.

From February 1996, those who did not make claims on arrival lost their benefit entitlement and received only food parcels or food vouchers.

From April 2000, all asylum seekers lost access to the ordinary benefits system and now receive support from the Home Office at only 70 per cent of normal benefit rates, usually paid in vouchers rather than cash.

If asylum claims really were linked to our supposedly generous system, we would have seen reductions in numbers of claims from 1996 and further from 2000 but this did not happen.

The rise in claims has followed conflicts in the former Yugoslavia, Chechnya, Sir Lanka, Afghanistan, Kurdistan, Congo and Colombia, a complete breakdown in the state in Somalia and a reign of terror in Zimbabwe.

The Home Office breaks down its statistics by country and, without exception, the origins of the largest numbers of claimants are countries with current conflicts.

I also find it alarming that Mr Parry sees migration to the UK as dispiriting.

Home Office research studies show that while processing of asylum claims does, of course, cost money to the public purse, those who come from abroad to settle here in general study harder, become better qualified and are more likely to set up business and provide employment than the general population, thereby more than off-setting these costs.

Added to this must be the profits made by British companies selling arms and torture equipment to despotic regimes and the debt interest the UK continues to force from refugee-producing countries.

We gain greatly from migration - imagine Brighton and Hove's Capital of Culture bid if we removed overseas arts from the Festival, closed down the ethnically diverse restaurants and excluded all the language students.

The real question on asylum and migration is why politicians and the media are expending so much energy talking up this issue in the minds of the general public, when the numbers and costs involved are minute in comparison with, say, the general problems affecting our health, education and transport services.

-Paul Ward, P J Ward, Solicitors, Premier House Marlborough Place, Brighton