MARK SHEPHARD

Dr Mark Shephard is a Senior Lecturer at the University of Strathclyde. He is the Deputy Editor of the Journal of Legislative Studies and the Joint Chair of the Study of Scottish Parliament Group.

Please tell us a little bit about how you entered academia and your academic career

I was one of “The 7” in the first full year (1988-1992) of Professor Lord Norton’s then Politics and Legislative Studies course. I worked in the European Parliament and the House of Commons in my vocational year of study (1990-91). I was going to teach English in Japan, but did really well in my final exams (I actually won a prize!) & ended up in Houston, Texas doing a PhD in Political Science. I then applied for a temporary job at the University of Strathclyde in the heart of Glasgow and I loved it so much – 24 years later – I’m still here!

Which five books/articles (written by someone else) have been most important to you in your academic career?

Richard Fenno – Home Style (I just could not put it down…it really got me hooked on legislatures and academia as a possible career).

Parliamentary Scrutiny of Government Bills by J.A.G. Griffith plus Parliamentary Questions by Mark Franklin and Philip Norton mashed with Robert Packenham’s article on legislative functions – the core theoretical underpinning and developmental basis for my mixed methods PhD on PMQs.

James Sundquist – Dynamics of a Party System (this really helped me start crack US politics at a deeper level of understanding).

Which person has been most influential and important to you in your academic career?

Professor Lord Norton + Professor Ed Page (my crucial formative Hull years) + most of the incredible Political Science Department at the University of Houston in the 1990s (e.g. Mark Franklin; David Judge (1993-94); Susan Scarrow; Kathleen Knight; Bob Erikson; Christopher Wlezien; Donald Lutz; Richard Murray; Ross Lence; James Gibson; Richard Matland; Robert Carp; Jay Greene…)

Which of your own pieces of research are you most proud of?

I’m not very good at liking my own work, but a student once said: “You are to politics what Kate Bush is to music”: my research seems to try out a lot of different methods on a lot of different topics (parliaments to social media to electoral behaviour to election campaigns…) often in quirky and/or pioneering ways (e.g. exploring questions asked by the PM rather than what we might otherwise study, or parliamentary impact over time and not just cross-sectionally…).

What has been your greatest achievement in academia?

Getting a PhD from The University of Houston, Texas (GRE exam + 3 years of relentless coursework + 30 hours of comprehensive exams over 3 days + 3 years on a PhD theory devising and theory testing using mixed methods. If you can do that, and survive without air conditioning in a Texas 108F Summer with 98% humidity, you can do anything…).

What has been your greatest disappointment in academia?

Not having enough time to do everything I want to do properly. If I could repeat it all over again, I’d probably not try and do as much as it takes time to jump around different fields…

What is the first or most important thing you tell your students about parliaments?

That they are multi-functional, and we need different procedures to fulfil very different functions. Beware the trap of evaluating the relevance of procedures just through the lens of legislative impact.

Where were you born, where did you grow up, and where do you live now?

Born in The Royal Canadian Hospital, Taplow, Buckinghamshire. Grew up on Shoreham Beach, West Sussex (and survived the strongest winds ever recorded (until 2022 storms) – 120mph on Shoreham Beach during the Great Storm of 1987 – we hid under the stairs as the roof started to peel). Have lived in Hull; Brussels; London; Houston, Texas; Glasgow; and I now live in Paisley, Scotland.

What was your first job?

A greengrocer in Shoreham.

What was the toughest job you ever had?

Teaching 3 classes during the height of lockdown and working 75 out of 77 days to deliver them properly.

What are your hobbies?

Gardening, photography, and painting.

What are your favourite novels?

One Day by David Nicholls (I still thank academia from saving me from a life of too much excess and fleeting celebrity!).

The Hobbit by J.R.R. Tolkein (the first book I ever got totally immersed in).

Animal Farm by George Orwell (if only the world had more Benjamins and Boxers).

Anything by Milan Kundera (some sentences just capture life experiences like nobody else does).

The first 3 Harry Potter books (the others needed an edit, too much sports and camping…).

What is your favourite music?

Anything by Kate Bush or Richard Hawley. If I had to pick one: Richard Hawley’s ‘Caravan’. It transports you to a sunny island instantly & at 2 minutes 29 seconds long, you can play it twice during a 5 minute break! I recommend it to all my students along with 2 other songs that will help get them through: “I Get Knocked Down, But I Get Up Again” and “Life is a Rollercoaster”.

What is your favourite artwork?

Rothko’s Seagram murals at The Tate Modern, London. If you sit still and watch the lilac oblongs on the mauve backgrounds you are taken to another world. Sometimes into the painting and sometimes out of the painting.

What is your favourite film?

Beautiful Thing by Jonathan Harvey (important piece of social political history and it is very funny and clever at the same time. I like to think it has helped make Britain a more tolerant place more embracing of difference).

What is your favourite building?

Brighton Royal Pavilion (like Brighton it is OTT to the max and I love it!).

What is your favourite tv show?

Victoria Wood as Seen on TV (I still remember most of the lines, for example, “Never touch prawns… Do you know they tread water outside sewage outlet pipes with their mouths open”).

What is your favourite holiday destination?

Lanzarote (warm sun in Winter + lovely architecture & volcano & sea vistas) + Sitges (close to Barcelona, but more chilled out and cosmopolitan).

What is your favourite sport?

Tennis and Badminton (because I used to be good at them).

Hybrid proceedings in Parliament: yes please or no thanks?

I think we will find ways to make this work better, so yes when needs must.

Appointed or elected upper chamber?

Appointed by an independent body representing a myriad of areas of expertise.

Restoration or Renewal?

Bit of both.

Cat or Dog?

Cat while in academia, both when I have more time in retirement.

Trains, planes or automobiles?

Bicycle.

Fish and chips or Curry?

Curry (with lots of salad).

Scones: Devonshire or Cornish Method?

Cream first, then jam (the scone often needs the moisturising ability of the cream that the jam does not have and I like the taste of jam first better than cream).

And, finally, a question asked by Seth, who is 9 and a half: Would you rather be a duck or a horse?

A duck, I adore water and, despite my love of a good party, mainly quite like being away from too many people.

By Winnie Zhou

This year, the SCIE Politics Club organized multiple events on the topic of UK select committees. We’ve witnessed many meaningful debates and thoughts coming out during the process.

At the start of the term, the Head of Humanities and Social Sciences faculty and founder of SCIE’s Politics club, Mr. Richard Driscoll introduced us to the basics of the select committee. To better answer our questions on how the select committee works in real life, Mr. Richard led us through a recent report published by the Health and Social Care and Science and Technology Committees, a select committee in the House of Commons^[1]. It concluded the UK’s major lessons from Covid 19 regarding public health management by analyzing six critical areas of responses: preparedness, non-pharmaceutical intervention; social care; impact on different communities, and vaccines distribution. Within each section, specific statistics and quotations of experts are referenced.

We further discussed the comprehensiveness of the report by reading it in detail. A problem identified in the report was the lack of resources in the NHS. The Royal College of Midwives reported that “NHS was short of over 3,000 midwives and that 40% of RCM members worked three or more hours of unpaid overtime every week, suggesting that the NHS had been ‘reliant upon the goodwill of those who staff the system.'”,^[2] the specific data of which provides convincing evidence of the credibility and accuracy of the report. However, the solution explicitly given to this problem, “the experience of the demands placed on the NHS during the covid-19 pandemic should lead to a more explicit, and monitored, surge capacity being part of the long term organization and funding of the NHS”^[3], seems vague and unpromising. We are concerned that an unclear short-term and long-term target may be hard to follow up.

On January 6th, 2022, our school invited Dr. Alexandra Meakin from the University of Leeds to lecture on the select committee system in depth. A majority of our Politics Club members appreciated this opportunity and joined the event passionately. Dr Meakin showed us a detailed understanding of the working mechanism of the select committee and its composition. The lecture taught us that the select committee, usually a permanent division representing the public to examine and make recommendations to governmental policy, consists of MPs elected in the secret ballot. It conducts pre-appointed hearings with experts, goes through the written evidence submitted by experts, and ultimately forms reports to the government.

Most interestingly, she listed some common arguments about the strengths and weaknesses of the select committee, which inspires interesting thoughts in us. For example, statistics show that the select committee’s suggestions are relatively practical, among which the executives implement over 40% of recommendations. This helps improve policymaking a lot. Also, she explained the advantages of its membership which reflects the composition of parties in the Commons. Hence, a report representing a cross-party consensus would more forcefully influence the House of Commons.

However, she also admitted some flaws in the select committee. The cross-party composition may make the select committee less effective in giving a thorough recommendation, as reaching consensus may sacrifice some detailed plans. MPs are also busy with businesses outside the select committee, so they may not devote sufficient time to drafting a comprehensive report. Compared with the Commons in general, the select committee usually does poorly in terms of diversity. Most detrimentally, the select committee lacks formal power. They can not directly implement but merely suggest policies to the government. Nor does the committee have any mechanism to follow up the changes in governmental policies. That’s why around 60% of the recommendation provided by the committee cannot be implemented as expected.

Dr. Alexandra Meakin’s lecture inspires interesting thoughts among our club members. We actively participated in the Q&A session to discuss further the role of the select committee. One of our members asked about how the committee balances between the power constraint on the Chair, and the consistency of the policy recommendation or the committee’s expertise. To further explain, the student considered that giving the Chair a relatively huge power to control the committee’s agenda may be a prerequisite for systematic policy recommendation over time, yet this may allow the power of the Chair to grow uncontrollably – a threat to the democracy. Dr. Meakin agreed that this conflict constitutes the core conflict within the select committee. Based on her expert knowledge, she concluded that, in practice, different chairs solve this problem with their approach. Some may lean towards reaching a consensus in the committee at the sacrifice of effectiveness, while others may take a more rigid grip to reinforce their ideas. This would also have something to do with the composition of the committee. The extent of party politics in the committee may be a crucial factor determining how fiercely effectiveness collides with consensus.

Inspired by Dr. Meakin’s answer, another club member added a follow-up question. Because the composition of the committee reflects the composition of the Commons, the club member was wondering whether this membership benefits the majority party, and if so, to what extent the committee can still achieve its goal of supervising the government, especially over some fields at the core of party struggle. Dr. Meakin admitted the composition does somehow formally benefit the majority party while offering some counter-arguments for us to think about. For example, the backbench MPs don’t necessarily agree with the governmental policies, if not critical of it, thus are still likely to provide insightful recommendations. Also, being in the same party with the government, the MPs from the majority party are more incentivized to give constructive criticism for the governmental policies, as improving the government’s performance yields benefit in the elections. Yet, it’s correct to question the extent of criticism the committee can give. With the harsh party whip, a select committee with a majority of MPs from the majority party is unlikely to provide criticisms at the risk of infringing the government’s fundamental interests. In response, one student added another question: the select committee supervises the government, then what institution is responsible for overseeing the select committee? Dr. Meakin’s answer of “the Parliament” also led us to think about democracy in the UK. The lack of the absolute doctrine of separation of power in the UK political system may indicate the impossibility of strict supervision over the majority party’s power.

In addition to theoretical analysis, we have seen other interesting practical questions. One student extended our previous club activity to discuss the effectiveness of policy during the Covid and how the select committee may help improve that. Another student also asked about how the lesson from the select committee may improve our work at the student council. Dr. Meakin shared constructive suggestions for us from her years of experience working for a select committees. The event ultimately concluded with our heated discussion and abundant new knowledge in our heads.

With continued interest in the topic, we plan to organize a Mock Education Select Committee at the Humanities and Social Sciences week at our school, on the subject of “cap on the number of international students admitted in the UK universities,” a relevant topic to us all. Members from our Political Club will represent the 11 MPs in the committee, while four competitors outside of the club will act as four experts to provide written evidence and go through a hearing process. We hope that this event can boost students’ interest in political affairs and encourage critical thinking throughout the process.

Author Details

Winnie Zhou is 18 years old and is a student at Shenzhen College of International Education (SCIE).

^[1] Health and Social Care, and Science and Technology Committees, House of Commons. “Coronavirus: lessons learned to date: Sixth Report of the Health and Social Care Committee and Third Report of the Science and Technology Committee of Session 2021–22.” Sept. 2021, https://committees.parliament.uk/publications/7496/documents/78687/default/

^[2] Ibid., p.28

^[3] Ibid.