Seòmar agus comataidhean

Thank you.

That is a very good suggestion from Dr Allan, and it is something that we could consider in the group’s work programme—particularly letting the other cross-party groups know of our existence once we have started up and seen where there might be opportunities to engage.

Thank you, convener, and thank you to the committee for its time this morning. I am sure that you have a busy agenda ahead, so I greatly appreciate it.

First, I apologise for Clare Adamson MSP, who is the proposed co-convener of the cross-party group. She is also the convener of the Constitution, Europe, External Affairs and Culture Committee, which is sitting at the moment, otherwise she would have been here today with me.

I am here to propose forming a cross-party group on the Scottish games ecosystem. Many of you will be aware of the importance of the industry to Scotland. It employs 6,400 people in Scotland and accounts for about 11 per cent of the United Kingdom total.

Scotland has a long history in computer games and the gaming ecosystem in what has now become the largest entertainment industry in the world bar none. Scotland does not just have a great legacy in its history of developing some of the most renowned titles globally and having big hits in the industry; there is huge potential for growth in the sector for Scotland in the years to come. The sector is estimated to be worth around £350 million to the Scottish economy annually.

There are innovations in gaming technology that apply in education, healthcare and environmental policy. It is not just the fact that many people will have grown up with and been aware of “Grand Theft Auto” and “Mario Brothers”; it is the broader application in technology, service delivery and service design across all parts of our economy. The industry has huge potential for the country.

The purpose of the cross-party group is to bring together the industry, parliamentarians and policy makers. One of the key challenges that came up in our scoping discussions with the industry and stakeholders is that the sector does not fit neatly into any area of policy. The technology and the business space are not supported by policy and provisions for the screen sector, and it does not sit within the education sector. The games sector spans a wide array of areas, which has been a persistent problem in the policy space for the industry for years. That is why establishing a cross-party group is the right thing to do.

On 12 March, we had an inaugural meeting in the Parliament to test the waters, and there was a huge turnout of people coming to their Parliament to discuss this area, for which they have a huge passion as developers, users and business owners. There is a real appetite for engagement.

Why now, at this moment in time? We are at a crucial juncture. In February this year, the Scottish Government backed the creation of a national games strategy. As its first task, we want the cross-party group to engage on that action plan with the Scottish Government, to inform the development of that strategy so that it is founded on real engagement with the sector. We are keen for that to be the group’s principal role.

The Scottish Games Network is the organisation that would provide the secretariat to the cross-party group. It organises Scottish games week on an annual basis. For the past two years, Clare Adamson and I have assisted in hosting the Scottish games week in the Parliament, to increase the visibility and policy awareness of that community and to build engagement. The cross-party group is a natural evolution of that, and we think it is an ideal forum.

We are keen to pursue three key themes in the first year of the group. The first is education. A number of institutions at college and university level are intensely involved in this work, but there are some challenges in the sector. The relationship between the industry and the education side of it needs to be addressed. There are concerns about the Scottish Qualifications Authority and the qualifications that it offers in this area, so we are already facilitating better engagement between the SQA and the industry.

The second theme is the Scottish Government’s action plan and national games strategy, which I have mentioned.

The third theme is visibility and ambition for the sector. As politicians and parliamentarians, we can all lift the ambition nationally to meet the opportunity that we have as a country in this area. Thank you.

Very much so, convener. I know that Clare Adamson has a long-standing commitment to the issue. She has a background in technology and a real commitment to it. My commitment comes very much from a Dundee perspective—I am a Dundee MSP—because of how important the sector has been to my city for many decades. We are both very committed in that regard.

I would say that, as I have said to the convener previously that I am very much of the belief that, if the groups do not work, they should be stopped. We will keep the group on a recurring evaluation at the end of the year, and we will look at whether we meet the objectives that we have set out in the work plan at the start of the year. If not, we will move to dissolve the group.

I think that there are cross-party groups that touch on parts of the area, but, as I said in my opening statement, the fact that there is not a key focus on it is part of the challenge. Of course, there is the cross-party group on the creative economy, which maybe encompasses a small part of this area, but it does not provide the focus that the area will require, particularly on the Government policy development that we want to engage in over the next year.

I did. I raised the issue with the First Minister in the chamber and had no response. We followed up with a letter twice. Obviously, that First Minister has now demitted office and there is a new First Minister. It may be worth—if the committee was so minded, as Mr Choudhury suggests—trying to ascertain the current First Minister’s view of this issue as well. I imagine that it is in common with that of the Government.

Yes, I raised the matter on 8 February 2024, and I wrote on 22 March and then again on 24 April.

Thanks very much, convener, and thank you to the committee for its consideration.

The petition of my constituent—Davy Cornock, as I know him—arises from, as you have noted, convener, a very deeply personal tragedy: the loss of his son, David, who died in Thailand in 2019. That is a loss that many of us cannot begin to comprehend. That tragedy has been exacerbated by our legal system, which has failed to give Davy and his family the answers that they have long sought, as a fatal accident inquiry into David’s death never took place.

The crux of the issue appears to be the definition of “ordinarily resident”, as the convener set out. It is on that matter that Mr Cornock’s petition is seeking a change from the Scottish Government through the Parliament.

Since the Inquiries into Fatal Accidents and Sudden Deaths etc (Scotland) Act 2016 was passed by this Parliament, not one single fatal accident inquiry into the deaths of Scots abroad has taken place. On 8 February 2024, I raised this issue directly with the then First Minister in the chamber. He agreed that

“it is the issue of residency—in that particular case, ordinary residency—that is causing the issue”.

Regarding any potential changes to the legislation, Mr Yousaf said that he would

“take a look and speak to the Cabinet Secretary for Justice and Home Affairs on that matter.”—[Official Report, 8 February 2024; c 25-26.]

My office has followed up with the First Minister’s office on 22 March and again on 24 April but, as yet, we have received no response. I ask whether the committee might consider using its good offices to help me in that regard to elicit a response from the Cabinet Secretary for Justice and Home Affairs, who is still in post following the recent change of First Minister.

I was pleased to accompany Mr Cornock to a meeting with the Lord Advocate on 28 March. The Lord Advocate has agreed to contact the Foreign Office regarding formalising a memorandum of understanding to ensure that families are given the correct information if a family member dies abroad. There is some progress there, I am glad to say.

However, in order for the Lord Advocate to carry out a fatal accident inquiry or to instruct one into a death abroad, the issue of residency will have to be addressed. I note that the Scottish Government has made the submission that the convener references, in which it is stated that the term “ordinarily resident” has been established through case law and the Scottish Government does not intend to define the term in legislation. I will come to that in short order.

Regarding the fact that no fatal accident inquiries have taken place into deaths abroad, the Scottish Government’s submission concedes that that is the case but also notes

“that the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service are able to conduct inquiries short of an FAI in relation to deaths abroad, such as the instruction of a post-mortem examination which has allowed further information to be provided to the family and given them reassurance and closure about the circumstances”.

I suggest that it would be worth the committee exploring the nature of those inquiries that are short of an FAI and the circumstances in which they might be granted. That would be very useful to my constituent. Mr Cornock’s family has certainly not had any reassurance and closure about his son’s death—very far from it, in fact.

In closing—if I can be so bold, convener, as to make some suggestions as to how the committee might consider proceeding with the petition—it is noteworthy that no FAIs have taken place into deaths of Scots abroad in the eight years since the legislation was passed. I hope that the committee will agree with me that that shows that there is a problem with the legislation and that Parliament should be considering what that is. It indicates a flaw in the system.

I appreciate the significant differences between the legal systems in Scotland, and England and Wales, as the convener set out. I suggest that the committee might seek to ascertain how many deaths abroad of people from England and Wales have been investigated in the same time period, from 2016 to the present. That might offer some ready comparison for whether the laws and procedures that we have in place are serving our constituents on a level footing to the rest of the UK.

Finally, regarding the Scottish Government’s position that “ordinarily resident” need not be defined in legislation, it might be worth the committee seeking the view of other stakeholders on this matter, such as the legal profession and perhaps Police Scotland, to understand the impact of that decision on their work in this area. If it is not the definition of that term, certainly how the term is used in our legislation and the ambiguity around it are part of the issue that is leading to a lack of justice and transparency and a lack of resolution for constituents.

It is not just Mr Cornock. I do not believe that there will be any members of the Scottish Parliament who do not have constituents who are in a similar situation, looking for answers about how a loved one died abroad. There is an issue of broad justice in this. If the committee could be implored to continue assisting my constituent in this matter, it would be of great assistance to many people in Scotland.

I will follow on from what the convener said about outcomes and whether the commissioners will be able to make change. From the Criminal Justice Committee’s work, what effect do you see the victims and witnesses commissioner having on outcomes for citizens? Can you describe your theory of change that will make things better for people? I recognise that you have been sceptical about the proposal.

That commissioner would perhaps produce a report that would come to your committee for consideration by the Parliament. Would that be right?