On Wednesday 21st, Imperial College Rector Sir Richard Sykes gave his "State of Imperial address". The short presentation followed by a question and answer session seems to have become a semi-regular fixture in the College callendar and was, predictably, dominated by the subject of top-up fees.

In a break from previous occasions, the Rector used powerpoint to give his short presentation, fumbling at one point between slides. The presentation was focused, as in previous years, on announcing the opening of new buildings (the Tanaka Business School), the progress on new buildings (the Faculty Building) and the plans for construction of more buildings (a new sports centre to replace the ageing Princes Garden facility), and the dream of building...even more buildings (A new halls of residence to replace the ageing Southside facility). Yes, it looks like students will continue to go about their work to the sounds of drills for some time yet.

Also included was praise for achievements by academics, including the celebrated winning of the Lasker Prize, confusingly referred to as "the American Nobel Prize".

Of most interest to the small audience, consisting largely of students, was the announcement of a Bursary Scheme that would offer grants of up to £4000 to around 150 students a year. These were to be financed out of new income to Imperial from £3000 top-up fees which will be charged to students if the controversial new proposals are passed by Parliament in a vote tomorrow.

The questions and answers session was predictable dominated by this issue, though students from the Socialist Workers Society, critical of Sir Richard himself and the forces in society he is perceived to represent raised subjects as various as his role as CEO of the major drugs corporation GSK, corporate sponsors influence and subversion of the college, progressive taxation and his trustworthiness. These accusations were dismissed in a series of rebuttals that were at times angry and others perplexed.

In a response to a suggestion that he, as one of the richest men in the UK, should be taxed more to pay for the Universities, Sir Richard first thanked the questioner for ranking him so highly, and reminded him that he already was being taxed at a higher rate than others.

The discussion then moved on to the issue of corporate influence in college. Sir Richard seemed puzzled about the antipathy towards corporate sponsorship and donations, telling one student "You have a very strange view of the world". He further expressed the view, earning himself a round of applause in the process, that corporate financing was not going to undermine standards and that in the cases where private donors wished to pay for specific projects such as the Business School, or refurbishing the Biochemistry Building, it would be foolish to turn them away.

The Rector was then asked whether, given his background as one-time CEO of GSK, he could be trusted, to which he answered that he wasn't asking anyone to trust him. The questioner then moved on to ask whether Sir Richard felt guilty about "his role in withholding AIDS drugs from the South African Government" during his tenure at GSK. Initially refusing the question on the grounds that the questioner did not understand what he was talking about, Sir Richard nevertheless went on to deny this had happened. He referred to regular attempts "on the telephone to the Health Minister every month" to persuade the South African Government of the day, notorious for it's reluctance to address the issue of AIDS, to accept GSK's anti-retroviral drugs.

The Rector also refused to discuss the issue of how great, if any, were he donations to Imperial College's hardship fund. These were, he maintained, a private matter.

Although several students made pertinent points regarding the desirability of top-up-fees, which the Rector answered with varying degrees of credibility, it seemed that Sir Richard was no longer interested in further debate with students on the issue. The bottom line being that he was responding in the best interest of Imperial College to attempt to deal with the funding crisis and was awaiting the final decision in Parliament.