Ask a parent who is a PAYE worker trying to send his or her children to third-level college about the present grants system and the reply you will get will probably be unprintable. The forms are complicated; the various grants overlap confusingly; students often have to decide whether or not to accept a college place before they know if they are eligible for a grant; and sometimes the grants are blatantly unfair.
The 1993 de Butleir report into third-level student support gave the example of a case where one prospective student's father had net assets of over £500,000 but his reckonable income for grants purposes was just over £6,000 - with the result that the applicant qualified for a full grant.
The submissions to the de Butleir committee made the point repeatedly that the PAYE sector is "treated harshly" and that "students whose parents are self-employed receive a disproportionate number of grants". More bluntly, the general perception is that, if you are a farmer's son or daughter, you're on a winner. Despite the Government's expressed desire to use the grants system to support those students from lower-income backgrounds, research has shown that almost the same share of spending on student grants goes to the middle 20 per cent of earners as goes to the bottom 40 per cent.
There are various reasons for this: many students from lowerincome backgrounds leave school early; for those who do make it to third level, grant levels are often so low that students from poorer backgrounds cannot ask their families to make up the difference.
The de Butleir report was scathing about the current system's defects. It noted that "some people with clearly expensive lifestyles obtain grants, while others who are very hard-pressed do not".
It concluded that the arrangements for those students whose family income is marginally over the means limit were particularly unfair. For example, in 1993 an applicant could have lost a grant of £730 if the family income had increased by £1.
The report analysed the very poor service given to students and their parents. It pointed out that there are three separate grants schemes - higher education grants, VEC scholarships and European Social Fund grants - administered by no less than 70 bodies: 31 local authorities, 38 VECs and the Department of Education.
Because of the late notification of eligibility, many students must decide whether or not to accept a college place before even knowing if they are eligible for a grant. This also means they have to pay a £250 student service charge - eventually refunded if they qualify for a grant, but still a penalty for less-well-off students at a difficult time of year.
There is a huge variation in the dates local grant-awarding bodies send out payments. Among the late payers in recent years have been Clare and Kildare County Councils and Dublin Corporation, whose autumn term payments sometimes do not arrive until late November or early December.
De Butleir also criticised the lack and/or poor quality of information about the system and the absence of information services such as freephone facilities.
Both the de Butleir report and the 1995 Education White Paper recommended moving to a central grants agency. The former concluded its comments on the present system by saying public confidence in its equity was "very low".
The Union of Students in Ireland's education officer, Mr Malcolm Byrne, yesterday welcomed the Minister's proposals, saying: "It's something USI has been campaigning for many years. We're confident that this new system will speed up grants payments to thousands of third-level students who for many years have often had to wait months before receiving badly-needed money for both studying and living."