The Scottish Parliament was asked by the Scottish National Party to approve the payment of �89m from capital budgets over the next three years.

In a debate, the SNP's health spokeswoman, Nicola Sturgeon, said the executive had a duty to patients.

But other MSPs accused her of "political opportunism" because the cross-party health committee is already pressing the executive ministers to pay out.

Parliament has a moral obligation to deliver justice to people who've contracted hepatitis C on the NHS and to do so quickly and decisively before many more fall seriously ill or die Nicola Sturgeon MSP

MSPs voted on Thursday to change the amendment put before parliament by Ms Sturgeon.

The amendment by Health Committee convenor Margaret Smith was passed by 79 votes to 25.

It told Health Minister Malcolm Chisholm to appear before the committee in January to update MSPs on talks between Edinburgh and London on compensation.

It also replaced the contents of Ms Sturgeon's amendment and was agreed without going to a recorded vote.

Mr Chisholm has promised a limited scheme for those worst affected by contaminated NHS blood products.

Health problems

More than 500 people were infected by blood products or transfusions before 1988.

Many of those infected by hepatitis C - a virus which attacks the liver - have been left with serious health problems.

An expert group chaired by the judge Lord Ross called for payments of between �10 and �50,000 for each patient.

Mr Chisholm has said that he cannot afford to set aside the �89m required.

He cited the budget for Scotland's cancer strategy which stood at �60m over three years.

'Quickly and decisively'

Instead the minister said that �30m could be made available over three years for sufferers.

In a parliamentary debate on the executive's budget on Thursday, Ms Sturgeon said: "I believe that parliament has a moral obligation to deliver justice to people who've contracted hepatitis C on the NHS and to do so quickly and decisively before many more fall seriously ill or die."

She rejected Mr Chisholm's argument that only those suffering long-term harm should be entitled to some form of compensation.

"To draw an arbitrary distinction between deserving and undeserving sufferers simply compounds the wrong that these people have suffered."