The campaign for fair and adequate financial support for students is one of the longest running and most ardently fought of the student movement. This year, the students' battle has been officially vindicated by the Action Group on Third Level Access.

In its final report, published last month, the action group recognised that inadequate funding was a barrier to participation in higher education and recommended that for 7,000 third-level students, the maximum maintenance grant be increased to £3,000. The Minister for Education has agreed to pay the "top-up", which will be backdated to the start of the academic year 2000-01, and says his department will "address" the other 76 recommendations of the report.

However, the questions now posed are: will the Minister's gesture be enough to combat the spiralling costs of college and will it have any real impact on the student population as a whole?

USI president Richard Hammond says unless all of the report's recommendations are implemented, the answer is no. "The introduction of the top-up grant is to be welcomed, but this is a very basic step that will benefit about 6 per cent of students. The action group recommends the top-up payment be increased and extended to more than 22,000 students and it will be a terrible indictment of the Minister if this doesn't happen."

The action group's recommendations become particularly pertinent at this time of year, when the cost of college really hits home. This year, a student living away from home can expect to pay approximately £5,440 annually in living expenses, according to the latest figures from DCU. This still leaves 7,000 students, deemed the most disadvantaged and the least likely to have access to parental financial support, more than £2,000 short. Those next in the pecking order, students who receive the maximum maintenance without the top-up, will find themselves scrabbling for a further £1,000 on top of this.

The director of student affairs at DCU, Barry Kehoe, is concerned that the children of low-paid workers, who do not qualify for the top-up, have been overlooked. "I hope this new and very welcome initiative does not create an income trap, with those in poorly-paid employment dropping from £3,000 right down to £1,882."

The spirit of optimism created by the action group report was somewhat dampened when it emerged that the maximum maintenance grant for those not classified as disadvantaged is increasing by just £3 a week this year. To be eligible for the full maintenance grant, which now stands at £1,882, the average family must have an income of less than £21,513.

Coming so soon after the action group report, Richard Hammond believes a £3 increase is "an insult" to students. "The grant wouldn't even cover half of the cost of going to college. The Minister will say the rise in the grant is in line with the consumer price index, but the CPI doesn't take rent, the biggest cost in going to college, into account. In the last four years, the grant has gone up 15 per cent while rents have increased by 112 per cent over the same period."

Although only 39 per cent of students qualify for maintenance grants, which at their maximum puts £52 a week in students' pockets, Hammond says this should not discourage people from applying. "The grant is a start. It's important that all students apply don't presume you're not eligible."

Barry Kehoe says that the regulations regarding grants need revising as students in receipt of a higher-education grant can find themselves at a financial disadvantage to those who are following a European Social Fund (ESF) courses.

"Under the ESF, students are allowed to make one mistake, in that they can repeat one year without losing their grant, but the higher-education grant is totally unforgiving. Repeat students face full fees and that's a huge deterrent to a lot of kids we see. It's an anomaly that should be addressed. In most European countries you're allowed one year of a stumble."

To qualify for the full maintenance grant of £1,882 (excluding top-up), students must be living outside the family home and their parental income must be less than £21,513, if there are less than four children in the family. If the same family's income is increased to £22,791, the student's maintenance money is halved and they receive just £940 in maintenance, an increase of £55 on last year's rate.

The relevant income figures increase if there are more children in the family but for eight or more children, the income limit is just £25,667 to be eligible for full maintenance. The income limits also increase if there are two or more members of the family in full-time, third-level education. In this case, an extra £2,420 for each additional student in the family may be added.

It all makes pretty dispiriting reading for this year's students and their parents when this year's cost of college estimates are considered. According to DCU, the cost of living away from home has increased by around £40 a month while the highest maintenance grant for students living away from home has risen by just £12 a month.

The £40 hike is not due to students seeking a more luxurious lifestyle, or even an increase in the price of a pint, as students' spending on social life and the miscellaneous extras decreased this year from £79 to £76. The real culprit is rent. According to DCU, rent has risen from £240 to £280 a month. Food bills have gone up by just £4 a month while all other expenses have either decreased or stayed the same.

In the USI survey, which combines the cost of living figures for students living at home and away, Dublin students have cost of living expenses of £4,749, and increase of £38 on last year, while those studying outside the capital are facing cost of £4,237, up £21. In both surveys, the largest expense by far is rent.

Keogh believes the extra expense will lead to students working more hours at part-time jobs to the detriment of their academic, social and personal life.

"The summer represents a significant opportunity for cash generation and a certain amount of work during semester time is no harm, but excessive part-time work is a concern. Students are not able to experience college life fully and their academic performance suffers, working too many hours can also affect a student's health."

Kehoe says the cost of living figures clearly show where grant money is going and exonerates the broad student population who are frequently accused of doing a lot of part-time work to support an expensive lifestyle. "There are such students, but a sizeable number really need the money in order to survive and stay in college."

Students' part-time jobs are rarely enough to keep them going and, Hammond says, most survive on a combination of parental support, part-time jobs and bank loans.

"Being a student is a full time occupation, they're not supposed to be working part-time but most are." He also feels that students shouldn't have to rely on bank loans to see themselves through college.

"Needing to take out a loan is a disincentive to attend college. Only 20 per cent of students from unskilled labour backgrounds go to college while 100 per cent go from the professional sector. It's not that one group is more intelligent than the other, the difference is financial support."

In real terms, Dr Woods has made little use of his position as Minister for Education to alleviate the financial pressure on students, Hammond says.

"Although the recent awarding of the top-up grant for a particular group of students is a welcome step, it is only part of what was due anyway in funding under the national development plan. The Minister has never had to go to Charlie McCreevy to ask for funding for students so he hasn't really done anything himself."

Hammond fears that despite the recent measures the financial plight of students is still being pushed aside.

"It's hard to see how the Minister is taking student finance seriously. A task force on student financial support was started last December. It was due to report in March - we're still waiting."