This survey set out to assess trainees' opinions on the quality of surgical training. Methods: An anonymous questionnaire was sent to all general surgery specialist registrars in Scotland and Wales. Opinions on the quality of training were assessed [graded (analogue scale) responses were used as follows: Awful = 1, Poor = 2, Mediocre = 3, Good = 4, Excellent = 5]. Results are expressed as mean (± SD). Using another scale, opinions about items relevant to the training programme were recorded as level of agreement with a range of statements: Strongly Agree = 5, Agree = 4, Neither Agree Nor Disagree = 3, Disagree = 2, Strongly Disagree = 1. Results: One hundred and seventeen questionnaires were issued and 102 returned (87%). Scores for quality were: operative training 3•7 (±1•0), operative experience 3•7 (±1•1), emergency surgery/critical care 3•6 (±1•1) and general professional training 3•4 (±1•1). Confidence that training was preparing trainees well for consultant practice was only 3•7 (±1•0) and that 'New Deal improves training' 2•2 (±1•1). The opinions highlighted the level of enjoyment 4•1 (±0•8), the sense of progressing competence 3•9 (±1•0) and the perceived value of additional training abroad 4•4 (±0•8). Good postgraduate teaching was more an aspiration 4•11 (±0•93) than a reality 3•05 (±0•99) (P = 0•03). All training programmes contained posts that were considered highly undesirable because of the reputation for suboptimal training. Fifty percent of the trainees felt that they should be operating under supervision in 50-70% of training cases. Only 34% achieved that level of training. Conclusions: Trainees are not entirely satisfied with either the quality or quantity of their training. The threat of a further reduction in available training time is unlikely to improve the situation. General 01-12