The infected blood scandal is an appalling injustice, as we have heard this afternoon. Labour wants to help to ensure that justice and compensation for victims and their families are delivered urgently. Therefore, we will support the legislative consent motion.

However, the matter has required the UK Government to be dragged repeatedly to deliver justice. The LCM, tardy as it is, is another example of the UK Government failing to adhere to the will of the UK Parliament and, indeed, to that of this Parliament. A response to late amendments that were tabled by my UK parliamentary colleague, Diana Johnson, and attempts to water them down, resulted in a late timetable being tabled in the House of Lords on 17 April.

It is bewildering that the matter has continued to drag on for as long as it has, given that the UK Government has already confirmed that it fully accepts that there is a moral case for compensation, while the Chancellor of the Exchequer has said that the matter has been going on far too long and that

“Justice delayed is justice denied”.

That is why we have a responsibility to work as fast as we can to resolve the matter.

Former Prime Minister Theresa May announced a public inquiry, chaired by Sir Brian Langstaff, back in July 2017 and the inquiry has been running since 2018. The final report is due to be published next month and an interim payment of £100,000 for victims and affected partners was announced in August 2022, based on Sir Brian Langstaff’s recommendations.

I first raised the case of my constituent in March 2018, while I was a member of the United Kingdom House of Commons. I am sure that all parliamentarians have heard harrowing testimony about their constituents’ experiences. Hundreds of people have been affected across Scotland and many parents carry some of the most horrific experiences with them to this day.

I represented the area in Glasgow where Ruchill hospital was. It was the main hospital in Scotland that dealt with cases of HIV and AIDS during the 1980s epidemic. Many young children died of horrific diseases in that hospital, and their parents had to watch helplessly as their children died, often from haemophilia, while the medicines and treatments that they thought would help to sustain them actually killed them in the most horrific way. We cannot underestimate the damage that that has caused, and continues to cause, across this country.

At the third reading of the Victims and Prisoners Bill on 4 December, the Government lost a vote on proposed new clause 27 in an amendment in the name of Dame Diana Johnson, which was an historic rebellion against the Government. The vote was remarkable; it was a remarkable victory for the victims in the infected blood scandal. The UK Government is now obliged to do the right thing and to take the necessary steps to urgently set up a final compensation body.

However, it is clear that the recommendations that have been outlined have not been adhered to fully. We have concerns about that. We have heard from a number of stakeholder groups that have worked hard to raise their concerns over the years. The Hepatitis C Trust, for example, has said that the announcement has

“blindsided campaigners and the infected blood community”.

It continued:

“We are concerned about the remit of this new expert panel and its purpose, and whether it may constitute yet another barrier to delivering justice … They must urgently clarify what the group has been set up to do, who is part of it, and how their advice will be made public.”

The Haemophilia Society said:

“This announcement, which was made without any consultation with the infected blood community, raises more questions than it answers.

We do not know which experts are on Professor Montgomery’s team nor has their appointment process been publicised. We do not know the panel’s remit or whether their advice will ever find its way into the public domain.”

The amendments might be necessary in order for the Government to take action on establishing a compensation body for victims of the injustice, but the Government amendments do not include a commitment to delivering concrete action when the set three-month time limit is met. That is why it is essential that, although we will approve the LCM today, the Scottish Government raises with the UK Government, at the earliest opportunity, those concerns on behalf of stakeholder groups, which the Health, Social Care and Sport Committee will also do.

The fair fares review excluded the Glasgow subway from the national concessionary travel scheme. The justification for that was apparently that Glasgow has a strong bus system, but anyone who has used the buses in Glasgow will know that they are completely dysfunctional. Will the cabinet secretary revise that absurd decision so that the Glasgow subway is part of the NCTS?

The adult eating disorder service in Glasgow works with people who have anorexia and bulimia, both of which have the highest mortality rate of all mental health conditions. I understand that the contracts for five key roles in that service are due to end in the coming months. Did the cabinet secretary discuss that issue in his most recent meeting with NHS Greater Glasgow and Clyde? Will he commit to adding that to the agenda for his next meeting?

SPT’s ambitious proposal to introduce a bus franchise for greater Glasgow is a welcome milestone, but SPT may establish a bus service improvement partnership with private operators in the interim—a move that risks sidetracking and delaying efforts to introduce the regional bus franchise. The Scottish Government has cut SPT’s capital budget for next year to zero. Will the Scottish Government review that ridiculous position and provide SPT with the capital that it needs—perhaps via the Glasgow city region deal—to deliver a bus franchise at speed and bypass an interim bus service improvement plan with private operators?

To ask the First Minister what the Scottish Government is doing to expedite the restoration of the Glasgow School of Art, in light of it being nearly a decade since the first fire. (S6F-02995)

The Glasgow School of Art’s Mackintosh building is indeed one of the world’s most revered art nouveau buildings. It is an intrinsic part of Glasgow’s identity, yet the shell of the building has been left languishing for 10 years after the devastating second fire of June 2018, as chronicled by The Herald newspaper this week.

As the French President did with Notre-Dame, will the First Minister personally intervene to expedite the restoration of the Glasgow School of Art by following international best practice? Will he establish a new statutory delivery authority with specific responsibility for developing and delivering the restoration project, in concert with the Glasgow School of Art, by 2030?

A revised business plan has been prepared, and I believe that it is due to be signed off by the board of FMPG tomorrow, but the fundamental issue remains that the yard needs an order book that justifies investment. That fundamental contradiction is not being addressed by the Scottish ministers. Therefore, the new managing director is doomed to fail unless the Government can commit to investment and a forward programme of orders. That is the fundamental problem, and no litany of managing directors will solve that. Will the cabinet secretary please respond to that?

On a point of order, Presiding Officer. I would have voted no.

Tomorrow, the Strathclyde Partnership for Transport board is set to approve bus franchising as part of its regional bus strategy, but the Scottish Government has cut SPT’s capital budget for the coming year to zero. That cut will hamper SPT’s ability to take our buses back under public control and deliver a better bus service for all of greater Glasgow. Does the First Minister welcome the bus franchise for greater Glasgow? If so, will he ensure that SPT has the funding necessary to ensure that it can be launched as soon as possible?

The shortage of ADHD medication supplies is causing distress for people who advocated tirelessly to get a diagnosis in the first place. One constituent of mine first sought a diagnosis in 2008 and was finally diagnosed privately with ADHD in 2023, but she will shortly run out of the medication that she needs. What consideration has the Scottish Government given to exploring new procurement options for drugs such as lisdexamphetamine, given the production issues that the current supplier faces?