Lord Leong reiterated that the law did not prevent strikes and that previous voluntary agreements were sufficient for maintaining service levels.

The ongoing debate highlights the tension between ensuring public safety during strikes and the political maneuvers surrounding labor rights.

Calls for a thorough review of the repeal's consequences, particularly on emergency services, have been made by Conservative leaders, pointing to a lack of evidence or planning for the repeal.

The UK Government has announced plans to repeal the Strikes (Minimum Service Levels) Act, which was enacted in July 2023 to impose minimum service levels during strikes in essential sectors such as healthcare and transportation.

Critics, including government officials, argue that the law was ineffective, as it did not prevent any days of industrial action during its enforcement.

In response to this, Labour has pledged to repeal the Act, fulfilling a promise made in their election manifesto, with the Employment Rights Bill currently in the House of Lords.

Conservative critics in Westminster have labeled the government's decision to repeal the Act as 'recklessness,' emphasizing the potential risks to public safety.

Lord Sharpe, the Conservative shadow business minister, has urged for a review of the repeal's impact on emergency services, highlighting the law's role in ensuring public safety.

Conservative peers have expressed concerns that repealing the law prioritizes union interests over the needs of ordinary citizens, describing the move as irresponsible.

Labour minister Lord Leong has argued that the Act contributed to industrial unrest and that prior systems for negotiating service levels were effective without it.

Baroness O'Grady of Labour noted that the Act was not utilized because it was viewed as unfair and unworkable, exacerbating industrial disputes.

Critics of the repeal argue that removing the law leaves a gap in safety mechanisms during industrial action, without offering a viable alternative.