A divisionDivision No. 271 · Wednesday, 16 July 2025· Commons· Business

Enterprise Act 2002 (Amendment of Section 58 Considerations) Order 2025 (SI, 2025, No. 737)

333Ayes
54Noes
Carried · majority 279 · Government won
263 did not vote
Aye332No54DID NOT VOTE · 263

650 Members · Aye 333 · No 54 · DNV 263 · grey dots in centre are abstentions

Analysis
Commons

Parliament approved a statutory instrument amending the Enterprise Act 2002 on 16 July 2025, extending the considerations ministers can use to intervene in business mergers and takeovers on national security grounds. The vote passed by 333 ayes to 54 noes. The order, designated SI 2025 No. 737, adds new considerations to section 58 of the Act, the provision that sets out the specific public interest grounds on which ministers may scrutinise or block deals. The practical effect is to widen the range of circumstances in which a government minister can intervene when a merger or acquisition raises national security concerns. Section 58 of the Enterprise Act 2002 lists the grounds on which ministers can set aside ordinary competition rules and examine a deal on broader public interest grounds; this order extends that list. Businesses and investors in the sectors or technologies captured by the new considerations will face the possibility of ministerial scrutiny that did not previously apply to them. The Liberal Democrats supplied almost all of the opposition, with 49 of their MPs voting no and 23 with no vote recorded. Labour and its Co-operative partners voted unanimously in favour, as did the Green Party and Reform UK. The Conservatives did not formally oppose the measure; three Conservative MPs voted no, but 113 had no vote recorded. The division sat within a broader period of government business relating to economic regulation, though the related divisions in the dataset concern the Employment Rights Bill rather than merger controls.

Voting Aye meant
Support extending the government's powers to intervene in mergers and acquisitions on national security grounds
Voting No meant
Oppose the extension of merger intervention powers, likely citing concerns about regulatory overreach or chilling effects on investment
§ 01Who voted how.387 voting Members · 263 absent

Each row is one party. The stacked bar gives the within-party split of Aye / No / Absent; the columns on the right give the raw counts. The whip column shows the published party position — “Free vote” means the whip was formally removed for this division.

Party
Whip
Aye / No / Abs
Aye
No
Abs
Labour Party
Whipped Aye
284
0
77
Conservative and Unionist Party
Whipped No
0
3
113
Liberal Democrats
Whipped No
0
48
23
Labour and Co-operative Party
Whipped Aye
29
0
13
Independent
4
2
7
Scottish National Party
0
0
9
Reform UK
Whipped Aye
4
0
4
Sinn Féin
0
0
7
Democratic Unionist Party
Whipped Aye
4
1
0
Green Party of England and Wales
Whipped Aye
4
0
0
Plaid Cymru
0
0
4
Social Democratic and Labour Party
0
0
2
Your Party
1
0
1
Alliance Party of Northern Ireland
0
0
1
Restore Britain
0
0
1
Speaker
0
0
1
Traditional Unionist Voice
1
0
0
Ulster Unionist Party
1
0
0

Source · Hansard · UK Parliament Votes API · whip status from announced positions; “free vote” indicates the whip was formally removed

§ 02From the debate.3 principal speakers
Stephanie PeacockSupportiveBarnsley South
Supports the orders as necessary modernisation of media rules to reflect 71% online news consumption, balancing public interest protections with supporting sustainable press investment.Labour · Voted aye · Read full speech (2,268 words)
Stuart AndrewQuestioningDaventry
Welcomes the orders in principle but questions whether they go far enough given Ofcom's broader 2021 recommendations, and expresses concern about the foreign state ownership regime's cumulative ownership gap.Conservative · Voted no_vote_recorded · Read full speech (550 words)
Max WilkinsonOpposedCheltenham
Opposes the orders in context of the recent 15% foreign government ownership cap in media, arguing it inadequately protects editorial independence and leaves grey areas on cumulative state ownership.Liberal Democrat · Voted no · Read full speech (443 words)
§ 03Related divisions.Same topic · recent
Sources
Division dataUK Parliament Votes API
DebateHansard · Commons
Stance analysisAI analysis · Claude 4.x
LicenceOpen Parliament Licence v3.0