I move that the Bill be now read a Second Time. The Appropriation Bill is in the usual stereotyped form. It is this year, as usual, to authorise the issue from the Central Fund of the balance of the amount granted to meet the cost of the supply services for the financial year. That is Section 2. Section 4—appropriation of sums voted for supply services—is for the services granted by the Dáil. Section 3 is the usual borrowing section and Section 1 is an extra provision this year because of the excess Vote for Forestry.

There are just two things I want to mention. First of all, will the Minister for Finance tell the Taoiseach that the amount we are appropriating now for supply services is £69,703,288 1s. 6d. He appears to be under the impression that the cost of supply services this year is going to be a great deal less than that. Secondly, I wonder would the Minister for Finance reply to a question that the Taoiseach avoided? He knows as well as anyone else in this House that the position of sterling and our attitude to developments regarding sterling is a matter of particular delicacy and interest at the present time. I want to know if the statement made yesterday by the Minister for Agriculture in which he suggested, or appeared to suggest, that he was advocating the devaluation or the revaluation of sterling, was made by him as a Minister stating Government policy or by Deputy Dillon as an individual whom we may disregard.

I do not think it is for me to tell the Taoiseach anything with regard to the amount of the supply services. The Taoiseach is fully aware of the amount proposed and fully aware of the economies that have been made in the two years and the reductions in taxation made possible thereby. The matter of sterling is so delicate and of such interest to us that I would not care to enter into any controversy on that at the moment. I note the Deputy's phrase that Deputy Dillon appeared to suggest devaluation. I did not get that impression from what he is reported to have said.

He was not speaking on behalf of the Government?

I am not answering whether he was speaking on behalf of the Government or not. What he appeared to the Deputy to say is not what he actually did say or what I understood him to say.

This is a Money Bill within the meaning of Article 22 of the Constitution.