There are two separate issues here: the reduction of tick sizes and the extension of SETSmm.

Reduction of tick sizes looks good to me, but hardly seems something that'll set the world alight. I guess MMs are against it since it reduces their trading profits a bit, but it's hardly a big deal to me.

What I particularly want is the extension of SETSmm, so that I can enter my own trades onto the order book in (more or less) all shares. That'll let me deal on the wrong side of the spread, if I'm patient, and at lower comm and initial margin due to cutting out the people involved in the retail broker route. The MMs claim that the depth of the market will be less: I suggest the solution is to take them at their word, extend SETSmm, and see if they offer a service that investors actually want. The MMs will be operating side by side with direct access, and the MMs will offer the immediate within-spread dealing and volume that may be limited on the order book. Fine. If investors want that, they'll call their retail brokers who'll call the MMs, so immediate dealing and depth will be available if that's what market users want. I'm happy to be patient when dealing (usually, and if not I'll get to the MMs or hit the normal side of the spread), and I just want the ability to put my own deals on when it suits me, which I think will be most of the time. Surely, in a capitalist world like this, if the MMs think they offer something that investors want, the best thing to do is to try them out and see if what they are saying is actually true? If they offer something that really is of value, then surely they'll be used and they have nothing to fear?