The Scottish Government

« Previous | Contents | Next »

Listen

CHAPTER 8: OUTPUTS - STAKEHOLDER SEMINARS

This Chapter examines the second of the key outputs of the consultation: the 5 stakeholder seminars.

As described in earlier Chapters, the Best Value consultation included 5 stakeholder seminars organised along a sector-specific basis with the following groupings:

• Enterprise, Transport and Lifelong Learning
• Education, Tourism, Culture and Sport
• Finance and Communities
• Environment and Rural Affairs
• Justice

The stated aim of these stakeholder seminars was:

Aim 1: To begin to facilitate a dialogue with public bodies and their sponsor departments on how to be Best Value organisations.

Aim 2: To start to refresh and renew the spirit of Best Value across the public sector by empowering public bodies to help set the direction for future resources.

Aim 3: To initiate the exchange of information between public bodies and the Scottish Executive on good practice in Best Value, helping the policy team to begin to understand and plug the gaps in Best Value knowledge management.

The consultation team's decisions which informed the format of the seminars are documented at Section 2.4.3 in Chapter 2. The outline programme for each of the seminars is in Annex 6.

Previous research amongst Scottish Executive officials (Nicholson, 2005b) suggested that seminars as a consultation tool produced mixed success. On the one hand they were seen as useful for eliciting the views of those less likely to respond to written consultation exercises with break-out sessions especially successful in allowing more reticent participants to air their views. On the other hand there were many examples of seminar participants getting too bogged down in detail rather than addressing the bigger picture, and speakers being too long-winded or unfocused.

Presented below is an analysis of the data collected on the effectiveness of the Best Value stakeholder seminars from the perspectives of the consultation team, the public service organisation participants, the facilitators of the events, and the evaluator's observation notes respectively.

8.1 CONSULTATION TEAM'S VIEWS

The consultation team was interviewed soon after the stakeholder seminars by the external evaluator. The team summed up their mood at this juncture thus:

" we are comfortable that the process is going as well as it might. That's not to say that it's perfect and there are lessons to be learned. But we are broadly on track (with the aims of the consultation)"

The team was asked in general terms about their views on the effectiveness of the seminars - what went well and what had not worked as well as had been envisaged. Overall, their response tended to focus on the less effective aspects of the seminars and the lessons they had learned from these. However, a few successes were identified too.

8.1.1 Successful Elements of the Stakeholder Seminars

Chapter 2 reported the planning discussions over the format of the seminars. The consultation team described how against their initial judgement they had been persuaded, largely by the Changing to Deliver team, into seminars with a less structured approach than they had originally stipulated. This was seen by the consultation team as a risky approach which put at stake full coverage of issues which they felt should be discussed. They considered that an unstructured approach could also result in participants:

• Talking about anything
• Not talking about the things the Scottish Executive wanted to talk about
• Talking about different things in each seminar - no commonality emerging

However, post seminars, the team was able to report its satisfaction with the relatively unstructured approach adopted, in particular in relation to Aims 1 and 2. The team considered that particularly successful elements of the seminars included:

• Giving up "control" and letting participants raise the issues of importance to them - in this way the Scottish Executive was placed in a position of "genuine listening"
• Finding that the approach seemed well matched in the circumstances where the consultation team was not familiar with most of the participants and did not have a prior grasp of their concerns
• An indirect benefit of using people within the office for facilitating the events - thus contributing to the skilling of staff

One unexpected output from the seminars was that contrary to the team's expectations, participants did in general talk about the issues which the team had prioritised for discussion, with an overlap in topics raised across all seminars.

8.1.2 Less Effective Elements of the Stakeholder Seminars

The consultation team reported 3 main areas of dissatisfaction with the seminars.

Firstly, they considered that with hindsight, they would have preferred full-day events rather than half-day seminars. There had been previous debate about the duration of the events, with the argument that half-day seminars required less time investment and were therefore more likely to attract more senior officials from public bodies. However, on balance after the events, the consultation team considered that the half-day format had compromised the time available for detailed discussion. In addition, they realised that in their view the "up-front" presentations at the start of the seminars, which they had factored in for scene-setting and credibility reasons, impacted disproportionately on the seminar content.

Secondly, they would have liked to have seen a higher overall attendance rate at the seminars. With an attendance rate of around 50%, they felt that some of the key bodies which they wanted to involve in dialogue were missing, in particular some of the very small organisations.

Thirdly, the team felt that the seminars had been least effective in relation to Aim 3. In their view the seminars had not been conducive to generating practical examples of solutions and good practice. They stated that they had been doubtful beforehand as to whether the seminars could achieve this output, and felt that particularly with the half-day restriction, such tangible outputs had not been realised:

" I was always clear that I thought it would be unlikely that people would generate very detailed practical solutions in the time available, but for them instead to be suggesting very broad themes such as giving us a self assessment toolkit or having a Best Value training day for all staff. They are practical suggestions - not how we would do it, what it would look like, how to procure it - not that level of detail. If we had had a full day… the afternoon discussions could have taken this forward."

On an organisational level, the consultation team described how they thought that despite what they considered had been good planning and preparation, the seminars still suffered from unforeseen challenges of double booking of rooms, the need for tables and chairs to be shifted at the last minute and IT equipment failing to work when needed. They suggested that others may have viewed these hitches as "chaotic".

8.2 PARTICIPANTS' VIEWS

The views of participants at the stakeholder seminars were ascertained by means of a participant questionnaire issued and collected from them at the end of their seminar. A copy of the questionnaire is in Annex 1. Forty-eight completed questionnaires were collected representing a 98% response rate. A summary of their views on the seminars is presented here.

8.2.1 Views on Whether Seminars Met their Aims

Participants were reminded of the 3 key aims of the seminars and asked to rate the extent to which they considered that their event had met these. A 10-point scale was used with 1 representing "not at all" and 10 representing "totally". A summary of the ratings given by participants is below:

Average Rating Range of scores

Aim 1 6.9 1-9

Aim 2 6.6 2-9

Aim 3 6.8 3-9

The wide range of scores awarded is noteworthy and demonstrates the broad range of experiences of those who attended the seminars, suggesting some very positive perceptions but also some relatively negative views on the fitness of the seminars for their purpose. Also of interest is that participants did not rate Aim 3 below the others despite the consultation team's view that the seminars had been least effective in addressing this aim.

Some participants contributed further commentary to support their ratings. With respect to Aim 1, it was noted by a few participants that although, in their view, the seminars had certainly begun a dialogue in a positive manner, they were not confident about where this was now heading, if anywhere.

Secondly, a few comments were recorded regarding what participants saw as a lack of sponsor department representatives amongst the participants of the seminar they attended. In their eyes, this curtailed the value of their seminar in relation to Aim 1.

In relation to Aim 2, a general view was that the seminar had begun to refresh and renew the spirit of Best Value but could have gone further in helping public bodies to help set the direction for future resources. Although for some, the event had given them ideas and the re-assurance they sought to take Best Value forward within their organisation, others suggested further assistance was required:

" More opportunities or vehicles to participate in future direction could have been offered."

Though it should be noted that, at each seminar, participants were invited to self -nominate to become members of the External Reference Group.

" Empowering us to set the direction for future resources remains to be seen. Not really discussed or clear at the seminar itself."

Views on Aim 3 revealed that many participants were disappointed that their seminar had not provided sufficient time for a robust exchange of ideas. One typical comment was: " session not a good vehicle for this in depth". One participant suggested that the initial scene-setting presentation could have been cut considerably to provide more time for the exchange of information. The view of a small minority of participants was that at their seminar they felt that they had been " talked at" and had had to defend their respective organisation's activities relating to Best Value rather than be allowed to exchange ideas freely.

Whilst it should be understood that the comments provided by participants tend to be skewed to the negative (those providing the higher ratings are more likely not to support their rating with comments), the views expressed are very helpful in revealing the sensitivity of participants to feeling valued within the seminar and their expectation of being listened to, in addition to their listening to others, at the event.

8.2.2 Views on the Most Successful Aspects of the Seminars

Participants were asked to identify what they saw as the best feature of the consultation approach used at their event. Their responses fell largely into 4 categories:

• Break-out groups (18 mentions)
• Participative focus (7 mentions)
• Opportunity to network/exchange ideas with peers (6 mentions)
• Informal/low key approaches used (3 mentions)

The break-out groups were seen as providing an opportunity to share views with a range of other bodies and for common themes to emerge. They were viewed as appropriate fora for exploring delegates' concerns and experiences in depth. Finally, the break-out groups enabled some participants to clarify concepts which they had previously found ambiguous.

Several respondents welcomed what they saw as the emphasis on participatory techniques used within their respective seminar, with one commentating that the use of post-it notes was a good way to involve everyone. Another considered that the use of these approaches had facilitated a wide range of experiences to be identified at their seminar.

Some participants noted in general terms that their seminar had provided them with a welcome opportunity to network and exchange ideas on Best Value with their peers in other organisations.

A few respondents highlighted as a beneficial feature what they perceived to be the informal, low key and open nature of their seminar.

Other features of the consultation approach were praised by a small minority of participants:

• Flexibility of topic selection for discussion (2 mentions) - " discussed the issues the participants actually considered relevant"
• Enthusiasm of presentation and lively approach adopted (2 mentions)
• Sector-specific arrangement of seminars (1 mention)
• Focus on BV principles (1 mention)
• Plenary session (1 mention)

8.2.3 Views on the Least Successful Aspects of the Seminars

No particular theme dominated the responses although most commonly identified as the worst feature was the lack of time available at the seminars for developing discussion (6 mentions). One respondent stated that even the initial presentations had appeared to have been rushed through.

Another recurring theme was what was seen by some as a lack of focus of the discussion at their seminar (4 mentions). Two participants considered that there should have been a greater emphasis on the practical aspects of Best Value within an organisational setting.

Three participants commented on what they saw as the slow start to their seminar. In particular they considered that the icebreaker session took up too much time and there were awkward silences at times.

The identification of topics for discussion in break-out groups attracted specific criticism from 3 participants. The process of selection was seen as slow, with the result a merger of topics which perhaps did not reflect what people really wanted to discuss.

Two participants identified the final plenary session as disappointing in terms of the quality of feedback from the break-out groups. One commented that they would have preferred the break-out group facilitators to have provided the feedback. Another respondent thought that there should have been time devoted to a formal Q&A session in plenary.

A few other "worst features" were identified by participants:

• Absence of auditors from delegate list
• Absence of senior Scottish Executive officials representing relevant areas such as Efficient Government
• Tone of presenters/facilitators - inappropriate jokiness; abruptness
• Best Value wall charts not used by participants (at one seminar)

Another approach used in the questionnaire to probe participants' views on what they considered did not go so well was to ask what they would do differently if they had to run the next seminar.

Their ideas for improving the seminars fell largely into 4 categories. These were:

• Better introductory session (6 mentions): perhaps with people declaring their Best Value interest and giving an example of how Best Value worked/did not work in their organisation. A comprehensive list of delegates and their organisations was also seen as an omission to be rectified.
• Advance background papers (6 mentions): many participants stated that they would have appreciated some pre-seminar papers, perhaps giving advance notice of topics for discussion, or at least to clarify the content of the seminars to inform organisations' decisions on who to send to the event.
• More time allocated to discussion of issues, rather than formal presentations and selection of issues for discussion (6 mentions).
• A greater emphasis on practical Best Value issues - solutions and good practice (5 mentions). One comment was that the good practice which delegates could have shared between themselves was not tapped during the seminar. Another comment was that any future seminar should, " look to solutions not fine words".

A few participants considered that they would devise an alternative way to select topics for discussion if running another seminar (3 mentions). The selection exercise adopted was viewed by some as time consuming and perhaps producing topics which no one actually wanted to discuss: " I wondered whether we were really reviewing the most critical factors for the purpose of the meeting".

Others argued that next time there should be more representatives of sponsor departments in attendance (2 mentions); that the seminars should be organisational size specific rather than sector-specific (1 mention); and that they should have a later start time to make it easier for those travelling long distances to the event (1 mention).

8.2.4 Overall View of the Seminars

Participants were asked to provide an overall rating for the seminar they attended on a 10 point scale, with 10 being excellent and 1 being very poor. The average overall rating was 7.2, with individual ratings ranging from 3 - 10.

A slight trend could be discerned between the lower ratings given to the earlier seminars and the relatively higher ratings given to the later seminars, suggesting a gradual improvement in aspects of the events as lessons were learned by the organisers.

Very little commentary accompanied the ratings provided. However, 3 participants offered fresh thoughts:

" Good start - it will be interesting to see further development and any roll out and timing of such."

" I can't be sure of the intention (of the seminar ) even now - was it intended to help me, or was it intended to help the organisers?"

" I was interested to see consultation in action. It achieved what I expected. I did not expect material aimed at my very small, specialist body."

8.2.5 Summary of Participants' View of the Seminars

Overall, participants' average ratings for the various aspects of the seminars were encouraging and indicated that the events had, from their perspective, been generally successful in meeting their aims. It was of note that despite some irritations associated with, for example, what were seen by some as over-lengthy formal presentations, lack of time for full discussion, absence of sponsor department representatives and so on, most participants were still generally content with their respective seminar. In particular, facilitation was viewed as well done, and what was identified as an upbeat and open approach adopted by the organisers and Scottish Executive presenters was appreciated.

The relatively wide range of ratings given by those attending the seminars and the diversity of comments provided in support of these ratings suggests that no common understanding existed of the purpose and nature of the events prior to taking part. Participants therefore arrived with differing expectations which were fulfilled or not depending on their pre-conceived ideas.

The issue of lack of time to develop discussion and to exchange ideas between different public bodies and between participants, their sponsors and other Scottish Executive officials emerged repeatedly as a drawback of the seminars. Participants identified what they saw as particularly ineffective time use within the seminars as including over-long introductory sessions, unfocused feedback from break-out groups and the process of selecting topics for discussion.

Participants identified clearly the break-out groups as the best feature of the events from their perspective. These sessions provided the opportunity for detailed discussion of issues which they wanted to raise in an informal and open manner. An independent observation of such groups suggests that despite the elaborate topic selector exercise, participants within the break-out groups tended to raise the same common issues for discussion.

Participants appeared to be very sensitive to who was absent from their seminar. The main bug-bears were the absence of representatives from sponsor departments and senior Scottish Executive officials representing what were perceived to be related initiatives. Delegates clearly had expectations about who they would meet at the event and in several instances these expectations were not fully met.

A cross-cutting theme to emerge from responses was that participants needed help with the more practical aspects of Best Value - its operation in situ, in the context of their organisation. Although this emphasis was also made explicit by the planners of the seminars prior to the event, seminars varied in the degree to which they tackled this priority area, with a few managing this better than others.

8.3 FACILITATORS' PERSPECTIVE

Views of facilitators at the seminars were gathered during immediate post-seminar debriefs with the external evaluator and in a dedicated debrief and reflection meeting attended by the lead facilitators and one member of the consultation team.

8.3.1 Views on Whether Seminars Met their Aims

Although there were slight changes in the facilitation teams across seminars, a consistent view was that the seminars had gone some way to meeting Aims 1 and 2 but were not particularly effective at fulfilling Aim 3.

A prevalent view was that the seminars did not allow for the time needed to exchange information, nor were they conducive to identifying good practice. It was remarked, however, that they did appear to commence the process of plugging gaps in Best Value knowledge management. It was pointed out that the lead facilitator had been primed to state the aims of the event at the start and at the end but this either did not happen or was not communicated effectively.

8.3.2 What Worked Well

Facilitators gave their reactions to the positive aspects of the seminars, immediately after these events.

A recurring view was that the sector-specific organisation of the seminars had been beneficial in promoting synergies and encouraging participants to talk to each other. It was considered that different policy departments tend to display differences in ethos and culture and sector-specific groupings played to these and assisted in enabling participants to feel comfortable about taking part. The sector-specific groups were also seen as helping discussion flow as people tended to commence dialogue with a shared understanding of issues.

Facilitators observed encouraging signs of networking amongst participants. They reported "lateral networks" developing and considered that techniques such as the use of post-its to record views helped participants to identify colleagues in other organisations who shared similar views.

Facilitators commented on examples of where they had managed to achieve what they considered was a productive balance of structure (eg keeping people to time) without compromising the open and listening flavour of the events.

Facilitators also remarked on what they felt was the effectiveness of having direct interaction between sponsor departments and public bodies (and not necessarily the body they usually deal with).

8.3.3 What Did Not Work Well

Much more attention was paid by facilitators to aspects of the seminars which did not work well as they looked for lessons to be learned and fed into the next event.

Some of their comments revolved around practical and logistical elements of the seminars. It was remarked that some of the rooms were too small for their purpose and the physical distance between the plenary and smaller group discussion areas was, for some seminars, not ideal.

There were concerns that the seminars had failed to focus on the "how" and the practical, pragmatic solutions to Best Value issues raised. There was a suggestion that this process could have been encouraged using a visual technique of having one flip chart for getting problematic issues "off their chest" and another clearly set up for "solutions". Another suggestion was that the lead facilitator could have been more specific about stressing that practical outputs were required.

Despite much identification of benefits of sector-specific seminars, one concern was raised that this approach had stifled diversity of view which may have been more evident had seminars been grouped differently.

Facilitators commented that the events had felt too heavily " front-loaded", especially those which featured presentations by both the policy team and a public body. This contributed to a relatively intense start to the events which hampered the facilitators' subsequent efforts to " get the groups going".

Once again, the issue of the duration of the seminars was viewed as problematic with too much " squeezed into" the time available. The view was that this precluded the opportunity to move from broad, high level discussion to more detailed practical dialogue.

The facilitators agreed that the exercise in which participants were asked to set ground-rules for the event was a " damp squib" and indeed, this aspect of the proceedings was changed by the facilitators over the series of seminars. A prevalent view was that the ground-rules and group vote activities appeared too trivial for many of the senior managers and wasted time. In addition, asking participants to record examples of best practice on wall sheets was seen as variable in effectiveness with one comment that this had been " a disaster".

The presence of high ranking Scottish Executive officials was seen as beneficial and by the same token their disappearance during a few of the events was viewed as a poor practice contributing to a cynicism amongst participants which made the facilitator's job harder. Where officials stayed throughout the proceedings, facilitators suggested that their precise role could have been clearer.

There were mixed views over the use of participatory approaches such as "stickies" on wall charts. For some, the use of such techniques was seen as out of step with the senior level of participant which the consultation team had tried to attract to the events. This, combined with the absence of pre-event briefing, was seen as perhaps a step too far for some participants who did not appear to relax into the participatory ethos of the event.

The final plenary session of each event was seen as inconsistent in effectiveness with no real sense of "wrapping up" against the objectives of the day.

8.4 EXTERNAL EVALUATOR'S OBSERVATIONS

Having attended each seminar as an observer using a specially designed "observation grid" (see Section 3.3.2 above), the external evaluator identified a range of effective and less effective aspects of the seminars. These are presented below:

8.4.1 What Worked Well

• The use of sector-specific seminars appeared to be effective in promoting a common level of understanding amongst delegates which resulted in useful generalisable ideas and lessons emerging from seminars as opposed to idiosyncratic, organisational-specific outputs.
• The depth of discussion at some of the small group sessions was impressive. For example, a debate about knowledge networks extended to a consideration of detail on form, rules, needs, honesty, capacity and sustainability.
• Good to have higher ranking Scottish Executive officials in attendance during much of the time. This provided a balance with the senior officials who attended from many of the public service bodies.
• The flip-chart exercise generally encouraged most participants to become actively involved in identifying positive examples and barriers, and the colour-coded post-its enabled a visual picture to emerge. However, it was noticeable that participants were more amenable to exposing successes than weaknesses and difficulties they had encountered.
• A host of recurring messages (eg concerns regarding audit; relating Best Value to existing organisational management systems) emerged clearly from the seminars providing a firm steer to the policy team on issues to be addressed in the subsequent stage of the consultation.
• Where a facilitator pro-actively encouraged participants to think more practically on solutions this produced immediate results and useful outputs.

8.4.2 What Did Not Work Well

• Ironically, for events which had been designed to be open and participant-led, the seminars had a tendency to become too focused around process - entry activities, group votes and so on - which on occasion got in the way of the free-flowing exchange of ideas which had been envisaged. There were examples of the attention given to the process of the events serving to restrict and contain some of the views given, in order to channel them into soundbites to fit the format of the process. Indeed, on occasion the event design became an inhibitor rather than a facilitator of the aims with outputs emerging despite rather than because of the overly complicated design.
• Having several innovative activities within one half-day seminar appeared to overload the events with instructions, explanations and encouragement to delegates to take part. One comment from a delegate at the Justice seminar (timetabled to commence at 9.30) was, " by 10.20 this morning I still had not got anything out of this". Small-group discussions tended to commence some 2 hours into the events following a series of presentations and entry/voting activities. On occasions the topics which had been voted on for discussion were subject to very limited debate due to time restrictions.
• Some awkward silences followed a few of the explanations of activities by facilitators and on occasion (eg flip chart exercise in the ETLLD seminar), there was no take up at all by the participants.
• Related to the previous point, on several occasions delegates spent some time discussing the process activities themselves rather than using them as the framework for delivering the Aims of the events. Debate about the activities sometime spilled into the small group discussions, taking up valuable time allocated to the substantive issues identified.
• Some of the venues were not ideal for the events. For example, some rooms were crowded with not enough wall space to display all of the charts required for the various activities. On one occasion, having to move charts with post-it notes stuck on them resulted in notes falling off and the activity appearing amateurish.
• Presentational aspects of some of the seminars did not appear smooth and professional. There were examples of IT failing, the lead Scottish Executive speaker arriving late, inconsistencies in the scene-setting presentations by the Scottish Executive officials and variable quality of the presentations by external bodies.
• There was not enough attention paid in the seminars to delivering against the aims of the events and in particular Aim 3.
• The role of the senior Scottish Executive officials at the seminars did not appear to have been ascertained prior to the events and varied between them. In each they were involved in initial presentations, but thereafter their contribution both facilitated and hampered free-flowing exchange of ideas, depending on the role adopted by the individual. No consistency in approach was evident.
• The setting of ground-rules exercise did not work. Participants appeared puzzled by this resulting in the lead facilitator taking the initiative and having themselves to suggest an approach to working.
• The closing plenaries were ineffective in pulling together the day's proceedings and relating them to the Aims of the events.

8.5 SUMMARY OF KEY POINTS

• The consultation team considered that the stakeholder seminars had been generally successful in meeting Aims 1 and 2 but less successful in relation to Aim 3.
• The team suggested that with hindsight, full-day seminars would have been preferable and enabled discussion to reach a more detailed and productive level.
• The attendance rate of around 50% was viewed as disappointing with smaller organisations over-represented amongst absentees.
• The team reported that despite careful planning, the seminars still suffered from unforeseen operational hitches.
• Participants' average ratings suggested that the seminars had generally met all 3 Aims. However, the range of scores was considerable suggesting both very positive and relatively negative views on the fitness of the seminars for their purpose.
• The most successful aspects of the seminars were identified as the break-out groups; participative focus; opportunity to network/exchange ideas and the informal/low key approaches used.
• The least successful aspects of the seminars were seen as the lack of time available for developing discussion; the lack of focus at some seminars; the slow start to some seminars; the mode of identification of topics for discussion; and the disappointing quality of feedback from the break-out groups.
• Ideas provided by participants for improving the seminars fell into 4 categories: better introductory session; advance background papers; more time allocated to discussion; greater emphasis on practical Best Value issues.
• Participants' overall ratings for the seminars averaged at 7.2 out of 10 but with a large range in scores from 3 to 10 suggesting no common understanding existed of the purpose and nature of the events prior to taking part.
• A consistent view expressed by the event facilitators was that whilst the seminars had gone some way to meeting Aims 1 and 2, they were not particularly effective in meeting Aim 3.
• A prevalent view was that the seminars did not allow for the time required to exchange information, nor were they conducive to identifying good practice.
• A recurring view amongst facilitators was that the sector-specific design of the events was beneficial in promoting synergies and encouraging participants to talk to each other.
• Facilitators also observed encouraging signs of networking amongst participants.
• Facilitators identified what they thought had not worked well. Amongst these features were: practical aspects of the use of small rooms; lack of focus on practical aspects of Best Value; too intense and heavy presentations to start the events; lack of time for discussion; failure of the final plenary session to wrap up the event; and ineffective ground-rules and group vote activities.
• Some of the seminar activities were perceived by some of the facilitators to be inappropriate for the senior level of public sector participant present at the events.
• The external evaluator observed many apparently successful aspects of the seminars including: the sector-specific organisation; depth of discussion at the break-out groups; presence of higher ranking Scottish Executive officials for most of the time; and the clarity of recurring messages which emerged to steer the subsequent stage of the consultation.
• The evaluator also identified aspects which did not work well: the complexity of the design of the activities sometimes interfered with the free-flowing ethos of the events; overload of activity instructions and explanations within the limited time available; the process of the activities becoming the focus rather than the outputs and outcomes; the inappropriateness of some of the rooms and layout of seminars; and the lack of clear and consistent roles for Scottish Executive staff present.

« Previous | Contents | Next »