Again, I will be brief. The provision on ''relevant customer benefits'' is valuable and, contrary to what I said a moment ago about another issue, it is helpful that the Clause sets out those benefits in detail. However, I want to draw the Under-Secretary out a little more in terms of the sort of investigation that she envisages under the clause and the practical considerations.

There are two groups of benefit, the first of which is fairly obvious:

''lower prices, higher quality or greater choice of goods or services''

in subsection (1)(a)(i). One is tempted to take the view that most mergers would involve less choice rather than more, so it would be interesting to hear more about the reasoning behind that sub-paragraph.

To return to some points made by my hon. Friend the Member for Huntingdon during a previous debate on dentistry—it seems aeons ago and I am glad that we have not heard much about it recently—I am pleased that the Under-Secretary is not taking the same route that one or two consumer organisations misguidedly took by expecting prices to be the same for the same services. I hope that she is, by definition, in the clause accepting that prices may vary enormously for the same goods or services.

I want to draw the Under-Secretary out further on subsection (1)(a)(ii) which refers to ''greater innovation''. I presume that that means greater technological innovation in the delivery of services—for example, by internet and so on—and in the sort of product available. It would be helpful to have a sketch of the sort of innovation that she envisages, bearing in mind that the provision applies to ''future customers'', according to the last line of the clause, as much as to current customers, and how the judgment will be made so that the relevant customer benefits exception comes into force.