I am pleased that the hon. Gentleman gave an explanation, because it was unclear exactly what he intended by the amendment. He is concerned to ensure that, in the definition of ''betting intermediary'' as it appears in the clause, it is explicit that the intermediary may operate either remotely, by the internet, or non-remotely, over the counter. Based on that, the amendment is entirely unnecessary. A key feature of the Bill is that gambling may be conducted by remote or non-remote means. That is set out specifically with regard to betting intermediaries, and all other types of operators, under part 5, which covers operating licences.
Clause 61 states that there will be a specific operating licence for betting intermediaries, and clause 63 requires such a licence, in common with every other sort of operating licence, to state whether it is a remote operating licence or not. That provision makes sense only if it is possible for a betting intermediary licence to be either a remote or a non-remote operating licence. With that explanation, I hope that the hon. Gentleman will withdraw his probing amendment.