asked the Chancellor of the exchequer what area, on the publicly-owned site, is occupied by the Imperial Institute and its Tower; and what is the remaining area available for a new building.

The Collcutt Building occupies an area of 77,000 square feet, that is roughly one-tenth of the whole rectangle; apart from that, the remaining area available for new development (excluding existing College buildings or sites in College possession) is 260,000 square feet, but some of that would be sterilised if the Collcutt Building were retained.

Do not the figures which the right hon. Gentleman has given show that it ought to be possible for architects to plan on the available site a new building without wanton destruction of a piece of architecture which, whatever the moderns may think of it, is supremely characteristic of its age?

No. I cannot agree with the hon. Gentleman that it is possible. All the efforts made so far show that it is not possible to plan on the available area a building which will house the required number of students for the Imperial College.

rose—

May I not ask a supplementary question?

asked the Chancellor of the exchequer what will be the cost of demolishing the Imperial Institute and clearing the site.

I would refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave on 15th March to the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Brixton (Lieutenant-Colonel Lipton).

Is the right hon. Gentleman not aware that whatever the cost of destroying this building the Government would be much better advised to use that money on building some of the schools they are proposing to remove from the 1956 to 1957 programme?

rose—

On a point of order. Cannot supplementary questions be asked from this side of the House, too?

Not necessarily.