In the Digital Britain report, tax credits are tied into making games that have a British cultural relevance. Is that a problem?
There’s a European dimension in that. My experience of that is through the debates that took place with the film industry, where in order to comply with the European Commission, there had to be a cultural test to qualify as a British film and therefore for tax incentives. The EU set down various tests which a film had to meet to be defined as British, and part of that was about the cultural contents. I’ve always taken the view that that is less important than whether it’s made in Britain. In my view, films like Star Wars or Alien should be classified as British films because they were made here. The money was spent here, and they created jobs here. That seems to be the most important test, but I know that the EU does attach importance to this cultural test, and therefore my guess would be that it will take the same view of any assistance to the games industry.

Is there a danger that we’ll end up with a very niche product? A lot of British films exist in a kind of marginalised genre of their own because of their cultural readability.
Yes, although it isn’t just those kinds of films that qualify under the cultural test. There’s a points basis: so many points for being made here, so many points for a British director. You have to reach a threshold, so it doesn’t have to be Notting Hill or Bridget Jones’ diary.

Would you be looking at wider tax credits beyond those outlined in Digital Britain?
I think even with the Digital Britain plan, we need to see a lot more detail: we’ve got a long way to go. The thing which is encouraging is that the government has accepted that there’s a case for some kind of support for the industry to keep it here. That’s a big step. The question of how it works is a matter that will be argued over, but at least the government’s accepted the case.

Do you think it’s fair to say that the establishment’s had a harder time getting its collective head around videogames than other mediums, then?
Yes, I think that’s fair. My guess would be that very few ministers in the government spend a great deal of time playing computer games, whereas they do go to the cinema, they do watch television, and they do listen to the radio. The importance of cinema and television and radio is much more easily understood by people who have direct experience. I may be doing someone an injustice: there may be ministers who rush home to play GTA all night, but it’s unlikely. I think the economic case in terms of the number of jobs created, the amount of money spent on games: it’s those arguments which people have become aware of, and that’s why now there’s a much greater recognition.

Do you think Parliament’s interest will ever stretch beyond purely economic concerns? People support cinema because they want to be seen to be supporting it: everyone agrees films are important. Do you ever think videogames will get to that level of social acceptance, or will it always be a grudging fiscal imperative?
Games require as much creativity and skill as film or TV and all these things. I think the sheer sophistication, and the amount of time it takes to create a game are important. I think the fact that BAFTA has now recognised the games industry with a specific games award section is a sign that games are being taken more seriously.

So, at the moment, when you discuss this subject with parliamentary colleagues, what kind of ideas do you think they associate with the word “videogame”?
Given the age of most MPs, they’re probably thinking back to Space Invaders and Atari consoles. The other thing is that there’s a lot of negativity around, a lot of concern that young people who spend their hours gaming are missing out on educational activities. The case that gaming can bring benefits is something we need to promote, and then there’s always been the fear that somehow certain games may be damaging because of the violent content, and there’s a lot of mythology around that. A lot of it is the media: the media will write stories about how vile and offensive certain games are. In some cases, I’d agree. A game like Manhunt 2 or some of the other ones the BBFC have shown me are clearly designed for adults, and we need to impose controls to ensure that children cannot purchase them. But then there’s the hysteria over something like the suicide bomber web game Kaboom, which everyone got very worked up about. When I went online and tried it out, the idea that this was going to turn the nation into suicide bombers was clearly absurd.

So part of the All-Party Group’s job might be educating your own colleagues?
I think there’s definitely an educational component. I think it does no harm for policy makers who are going to be debating issues affecting the games industry to have some experience of videogames. If that means developers and publishers coming into the House of Commons, demonstrating them, and giving MPs a sense of what the game involves, that has to be a good thing.