 That concludes the debate on reconsidering highly protected marine areas. It's now time to move on to the next item of business, which is an urgent question, and I call Stephen Kerr. To ask the Scottish Government whether it will provide further explanation of the removal of the previously announced £46 million of funding for universities and colleges in Scotland. Minister Graham Day. We currently face the most difficult public spending environment since devolution, and we've been clear that government will have to make difficult choices to address new pressures in the education and skills portfolio since the 23-24 budget announcement, which is the explanation for this decision. The £46 million funding was not part of the core allocations for colleges and universities, which the Scottish funding council published on 13 April. That funding was intended to enable strategic change in the sector's additional funding for which will be reconsidered if and when the Government's financial position allows. That decision returns funding for universities and colleges to the previously announced flat-cast settlement in line with the resource spending review. Despite the current challenges and extreme pressures, we continue to spend nearly £2 billion on Scotland's colleges and universities, demonstrating our continued commitment to tertiary education. I understand that this is disappointing news for colleges and universities, and it has added to the challenges that they face. We are therefore engaging with the Scottish funding council, as well as the college and university sectors, to ensure that institutions can achieve financial stability. I have also spoken directly with College of Scotland and University of Scotland today on this matter. Stephen Kerr. Professor Dame Sally Mapstone, University of Scotland, says that it is dismaying that we are told that higher education is being prioritised by the Scottish Government. The Scottish Government cannot keep expecting to have world-class universities on the cheap. The Struthers of Colleges Scotland says of the claw-back that it is inexplicable. Ministers are relying on colleges to provide hundreds of thousands of students with training and education each year, but with less and less funding it simply cannot be done any more. I believe from our time together on the Education, Children and Young People Committee that the minister genuinely wants to support Scotland's colleges and universities, but I wonder if he has had a personality transplant. One of his first acts on his return as a minister is to put the equivalent of a dagger at the heart of Scottish higher and further education. What did the minister tell him about the real-world consequences of the drastic funding cuts? There is an element or a portrayed element of surprise, shock in Mr Kerr's presentation. I still do not understand that. The fact that the education portfolio had to revisit its original budget planning can come as no surprise to Mr Kerr, nor any other member of the Education Committee of the Parliament. Not only do we face the same pressures as other areas brought about by the appalling mismanagement of the UK economy by the Tories, we also provided local government with substantial financial assistance in order that they reached a pay settlement with teachers. In addition, many opposition politicians, led by Stephen Kerr, demanded repeatedly that we assist in securing. The then Cabinet Secretary for Education was crystal clear to Mr Kerr and other members at the Education Committee back in February that the funds involved would have to be found from within the portfolio budget. Either what we have here is an attack of selective amnesia on the part of Mr Kerr or perish the thought, the very worst of opposition politicking. Mr Kerr can't have it both ways. The same money can't be spent twice. Stephen Kerr knows I think that the minister is better than the reply he just gave. By the way, nobody told Ross Greer, another member of our committee, who was busy tweeting the day before how proud he was about the £46 million he'd managed to procure for the sector from the government, so there's something not quite joined up about any of this. It was only on December 15 that John Swinney, with much fanfare, promised £46 million more for universities and colleges. He said, we must have a skills training and research environment that enables our people and businesses to realise their potential. Ironically, it was on me an intervention that I put to the then Deputy First Minister. He said, I also point out to Mr Kerr as part of the budget. He did not welcome this bit. More resources have been allocated to universities and colleges, which obviously contribute to the skills opportunities and capacities of our country. John Swinney, that was 20 weeks ago, so what has changed? Was John Swinney wrong to allocate the money? How can Scotland's colleges and universities be expected to plan for the long term, to fulfil the vital function that is in their power to deliver for our country when they are faced with this total betrayal? I'm not only selective, I'm easier and inability to listen to an answer. I was very clear about what has changed. I go back to Mr Kerr's second point. He's right that this does set challenges for the colleges sector. I have spoken at length today with colleges Scotland and university Scotland. Next week I'll be meeting with the colleges' Scotland chief executives, separately with the colleges' principals and chairs and then university Scotland. There's going to be considerable dialogue about how we collectively can address, as I acknowledge, the challenges that this regrettable decision has created for them. The Government has thrown further in higher education into chaos by continually failing to provide answers on funding. It's given at least three different explanations to Scottish Labour on what this funding could have been used for, including supporting transition to a financially sustainable system, supporting skills, training and research, and future-proofing the sector. The Government itself identified those challenges, so can the minister tell us how he expects the sector to address any of those challenges in the absence of the funding that was promised? The funding was intended to support transition in the sectors to a more sustainable footing. Of course, that decision makes that more difficult, and that's why I'm engaging directly with the sector on that, to identify ways of moving forward on it. I do just say gently to Pam Duncan-Glancy that, if God forbid Labour ever found themselves in government, they'd be faced with making difficult financial decisions like that in education. Perhaps not, because if reports are to be be waived, they favour tuition fees, although I suspect that the students of Scotland would have something to say about that. The minister has already spoken about the difficult financial environment that we are experiencing since devolution in 1999, with multiple shared challenges and demands on the public purse. Therefore, can the minister advise what analysis in this decision the Scottish Government has done to quantify the impact of external factors in this scenario, including Brexit and the UK Government's 2022 mini budget? What effect has that had on financing our colleges and universities? I hear the Conservatives groaning how predictable. There's no doubt that Scotland continues to feel the effects of Brexit and the impact of the UK Government's spending decisions. I spent much of this week with the university sector and I hear the pain that they are suffering as a result, continuing pain as a result of Brexit. Scotland is losing out on hundreds of millions of pounds of EU funding due to Brexit, including losing access to the £26 billion Erasmus Plus programme due to the UK Government decision not to participate. While the Scottish Government is doing what it can with its limited powers to ensure that we provide the services that people need, the UK Government could do far more to ease the burden affecting so many. Last week, the head of University of Scotland described the SNP Government's university policy as managed decline. In response, the minister then said that he was listening to universities and colleges. This week, he cuts £46 million from their budget. Is the minister sure that he was listening? Does the minister think that those cuts will end that managed decline? As with Stephen Kerr, he is selective amnesia. Willie Rennie is also a member of the education committee. He sat there and heard Shirley-Anne Somerville explain that the funding for the teachers pay settlement would have to be found within the education budget. I don't know from where he thought that was going to come. To go back to his point about engagement and listening to the universities, as I said, I will be meeting all of them next week. I am very open minded both in terms of the college sector and the university sector to any suggestions that they have about flexibilities. Willie Rennie knows that we have talked about this on committee in recent months. Any suggestions that they have will be listened to. That concludes the urgent question. The next item of business is consideration of business motion 8.795. In the name of George Adam, on behalf of the Parliamentary Bureau, setting out a business programme. I call on George Adam to move the motion. The next item of business is consideration of two Parliamentary Bureau motions. I ask George Adam, on behalf of the Parliamentary Bureau, to move motions 8.796 on a committee substitute and 8.797 on designation of a lead committee. The question on those motions will be put at decision time. There are eight questions to be put as a result of today's business. The first question is that amendment 8.764.2, in the name of George Adam, which seeks to amend motion 8.764, in the name of Douglas Ross, on transparency of Scotland's governing party, be agreed. Are we all agreed? The Parliament is not agreed, therefore we will move to vote and there will be a short suspension to allow members to access the digital voting system.