In Scotland, £600 is the notional study leave allocation per resident doctor in training. This allocation is a guide for resident doctors and Training Programme Directors (TPDs) rather than a spending requirement.

Study leave funding is aligned to curricular requirements and specialty competence development, not general employment-related mandatory training. Resident doctors are required to achieve competencies as set out within the relevant specialty curriculum. There is no defined list of “mandatory training” within the study leave policy.

Study leave budgets are not utilised for Once for Scotland mandatory training or for training required by employing Boards as part of local employment obligations.

I have asked Teresa Medhurst, Chief Executive of the Scottish Prison Service (SPS), to respond. Her response is as follows:

As explained in the answer to S6W-42080; as a public body we must uphold our statutory obligation to ensure everyone in our care has their personal information protected. Given that the 21 transgender people in our custody represent only 0.3% of the total prison population, we are unable to provide any further disaggregation of this data into which estate they are held in as there is a potential risk of identification of individuals due to the very small numbers involved.

You are aware of the current trans policy as set out in S6W-42080 ensures that no trans woman with a risk of violence against women and girls is placed in the female estate and that the relevant data on trans prison numbers is part of the data we publish on a quarterly basis, the last of which can be found here.

The Scottish Government’s long-held position, which mirrors the UK Government’s, is that it does not regard it as appropriate to engage in public comment in respect of live court proceedings. That is different from saying that the position is that Scottish Government cannot comment or is prevented from commenting generally on live litigation, although there will be cases in which the Contempt of Court Act 1981 is engaged to that effect - and additionally cases in which there are legal prohibitions that must be adhered to - to ensure there is no risk of impediment or prejudice to the proceedings. In all cases, the Scottish Government is mindful of the obligation to uphold the independence of the judiciary.

The Scottish Government is asked why it is choosing not to comment on this particular litigation. The answer to that applies to the Scottish Government’s approach to all live litigation. The appropriate forum for discussions on matters live before the court is in the court and that ensures that the proper respect is afforded to the judiciary and also to the litigants.

The Working Group was convened by the Permanent Secretary and is chaired by the Director General for Education and Justice. The membership of the Working Group includes representatives from every relevant portfolio area across the Scottish Government, including officials from the following Director Generals (DG):

• DG Corporate
• DG Communities
• DG Education and Justice
• DG Economy
• DG Exchequer
• DG Net Zero
• DG Health and Social Care
• DG Strategy and External Affairs

Since its establishment in April 2025, the Working Group has met on 30 April, 13 May, 29 May, 17 June, 31 July, 14 August, 28 August, 11 September, 25 September, 9 October, 23 October, 6 November, 20 November and 4 December.

There are both minutes taken and papers considered by the Working Group. The minutes are published on the Scottish Government’s website here: UK Supreme Court Judgment (For Women Scotland Ltd v The Scottish Ministers): working group - gov.scot The outstanding minutes will be published in early 2026.

The Scottish Government accepts the judgment of the Supreme Court. It is the responsibility of employers and service providers to interpret and comply with the Equality Act 2010, and for the regulator - the Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC) - to enforce the Act.

As stated previously, it is the Scottish Government’s long-held position that it is inappropriate for Scottish Ministers to comment on live litigation. In all cases, we have an obligation to uphold the independence of the judiciary. Therefore it would also be inappropriate to meet with For Women Scotland to discuss a live case. I met with For Women Scotland in May last year, and Scottish Government officials have also met with them to discuss the impact of the judgement and their priorities for the forthcoming Women’s Equality Strategy.

The review of facilities across the Scottish Government core estate is progressing at pace, though it is important that this work is completed thoroughly. While no fixed end date has been set, physical building surveys are complete and contractor reporting is expected to conclude by the end of March 2026. The next steps include will include reviewing outputs against EHRC guidance, undertaking an Equalities Impact Assessment, consulting with stakeholders, clarifying policy positions, and agreeing recommended actions with an implementation plan.

Application of the law following the Supreme Court ruling remains a matter for Boards, in accordance with their own legal advice. As advised in response to your previous question answered by Shirley-Anne Somerville on 9 December 2025, we have written to Health Boards to reinforce the importance of ensuring that the law is followed, and the Supreme Court judgment implemented. We will continue to maintain dialogue with the Senior executives in the Boards to understand how they are progressing this work.