asked the Minister of Defence if he will give details of the proposed increase in arms expenditure of £265 million a year by 1967–68.

No, Sir, but the figure takes account of rising living standards for the Service man as well as the growing cost and complexity of equipment.

Surely that is not right? There is an increase of only £30 million a year for soldiers' pay. Since the Government have decided to increase the arms burden by £160 million a year, plus millions of pounds of hidden expenditure in a single year, is it not a fact that the £265 million estimate is a serious understatement of the Government's arms expenditure?

No, Sir.

Does this figure make provision to replace the military aid so misguidedly cut off by the Americans?

That is a rather minimal aspect of these matters.

The right hon. Gentleman replied to me "No, Sir". But how can he agree to £265 million being a reasonable estimate for three years—it is a fantastic figure in the opinion of many people—when he will spend nearly that in the first year alone?

I think we could debate the cost of defence when we come to the debate. That will be better than starting a wide-ranging discussion at Question Time.