Back in 1997 the Fianna Fail position paper on third-level education raised the hopes of the student population - and its parents - when it promised increases in the level of the student maintenance grant and a rise in the qualifying income limits. The promise to streamline the operation of the third-level grants system was also welcomed. Admittedly the proposed grant increase was to be "gradual . . . as resources permit." But how gradual can you get? In 1997 the maximum student maintenance grant was increased by 67p per week. This year, it's up by a whopping 77p for students living away from home and by just 36p per week for students residing with the family. Meanwhile, the qualifying income limits remain the same and the streamlining of the administration system is still under discussion. The full maintenance grant for a student living away from home now stands at £1,653 or £45.89 a week, based on an eight-and-a-half-month academic year. Students living less than 15 miles from college are entitled to an adjacent rate of £660 a year or £18.33 a week. At this rate the student population is never going to pull itself out of the poverty trap. Three months after leaving school, an 18-year-old could qualify for a weekly £68.40 on the dole.

The Government says it is committed to increasing the participation rates in higher education. "The Government believes that education is a powerful tool of both social inclusion and economic development," Micheal Martin, Minister for Education and Science, told the Business, Education and Training Partnership Forum during the summer.

"We need to ensure that the numbers who leave school qualified to go on to third level increase significantly as a percentage of every age cohort," he said. "We need to reach out to under-represented groups. The time has quite clearly come to say that third-level must become commonplace for all and not just for some groups in society."

Laudable sentiments certainly, But how real is the commitment? Where's the beef? Any move to in increase participation rates must be accompanied by very real efforts to support students.

In his address, Martin, quite rightly, highlighted the need to develop student support and mentoring systems. But he said nothing about grants. And surely maintenance grants are central to the issue?

Dr Tommy Cooke, DIT's community education Links co-ordinator, argues: "It's up to the Government to put in place adequate financial supports if they want their policies on access to third level to be put in place. The higher education grants are generally acknowledged as being grossly insufficient for students' needs."

Jim Walsh, research officer with Combat Poverty, points to the inconsistency in allowing over 21-year-olds coming from VTOS schemes to thirdlevel to retain full welfare entitlements, while schoolleavers are eligible only for the maintenance grant. "Combat Poverty has always argued that people need a minimally adequate income of around £70 per week. It would be logical to expect students, especially those whose parents are already on welfare, to receive the same amount."

There are, too, inconsistencies in the child allowances paid to social welfare recipients with children in full-time education. Short-term recipients can claim only for children who remain in full-time third-level education until the age of 18 years. However, long-term social welfare recipients, including widows and lone parents, can claim about £15 a week for a dependent child until the end of the academic year in which the student reaches 22 years.

A major concern of some educators is the fact that many people living on low incomes are ignorant of the existence of higher education maintenance grants. "A lot of the students we meet - Leaving Cert students around the city - are unaware of the existence of the grants," says Cooke. "There's a very real information problem in some areas. This needs to be addressed in appropriate ways."

He points, too, to the higher education grant application form, which, he says, is complicated in the extreme. "This form needs to be simplified. A lot of people could find it confusing and be put off by it."

The introduction of free third-level fees was "a missed opportunity to direct resources into maintenance grants," says Walsh. "There needs to be some way we can target students who come from families who are on welfare."

However, Barry Kehoe, director of student services at DCU, rejects the view that social welfare recipients should be singled out for increased grants. "By targeting this group you overlook the fact that families earning £16,000 or £17,000 a year often have no more disposable income than people on social welfare," he says. "I'd be anxious to avoid creating a new poverty trap for the low-paid."

Department figures show that 50 per cent of third-level students, including 60 per cent of students in the IT sector, get maintenance grants. "Higher education grants are an urgent poverty issue, not an elitist perk," says Kehoe. "People imagine students at third-level to be well-heeled and affluent. It's a myth that there are no poor kids going to college or that poor kids don't acquire the qualifications to go."

He also points to the perception that many grant recipients are in fact well-off - the children of wealthy farmers and the self-employed, for example. "This view may be the cause of the delay in the grants' increase," he argues, "but, in fact, it's a problem of the tax system and not the grants system."

Kehoe estimates that the cost for a third-level student living away from home for an eight-and-a-half-month academic year is £4,471. "The grant," he says, "covers only 37 per cent of the cost of a student living away from home and 27 per cent for a student living at home." While better-off students supplement their incomes with parental contributions and bank loans, these avenues are often denied to students from low-income backgrounds.

The USI's most recent Student Poverty Survey shows that almost 60 per cent of third-level students now have part-time jobs. While some students undoubtedly work for extra beer money, others work out of dire necessity, simply to survive in college.

This, says Dr Christopher Dick, occupational physician at TCD's student health centre, can be detrimental to the health of students. "Students who have part-time jobs can suffer from loss of sleep and poor concentration, especially when they are working out of necessity. This can lead to stress and depression."

While many students from less well-off families do very well at college, he says, many youngsters who are forced to take part-time jobs lack the time to participate fully in college life. "They don't have time to join clubs and societies and they miss out on proper exercise and social intercourse. They can't fulfil themselves as undergraduates and this can lead to general feelings of inadequacy and poor self-esteem."

There is concern, too, that many students are surviving on poor diets. According to USI's Poverty Survey, almost half of students eat vegetables on three or fewer days each week. A third of students take breakfast only three days each week and 16 per cent say they never take breakfast.

A lack of affordable student accommodation, especially in the cities, means that many youngsters are forced to live in sub-standard housing, which can also contribute to ill-health. "If students get the points to go to college," says Dick, "they are entitled to have reasonable grants and I think that as a nation we can afford to pay them."