Hair and Beauty Sector Regulation

Phil Brickell Excerpts

Monday 2nd November 2026 Commons Chamber

[Vikki Slade]

I thank the hon. Member for his intervention. This issue is about tax receipts. I am not talking about stopping people cutting their family members’ hair or stopping genuinely self-employed people running a start-up from home. This is not about where people trade; it is about whether they trade legitimately and how we sustain the next generation of the industry.

I am really glad that the hon. Member mentioned that point, because I want to tell a story that was shared with me by Mike Taylor about an apprentice who has taken up his programme. Mike has an incredible academy that takes on about a dozen young people—mostly NEETS—aged 16 to 18 in Broadstone, where I live. He has an apprentice who every week is travelling from Kent—it is a long way from Kent to Dorset, but he could not find a local training placement—to stay with his aunty in Dorchester for his training so that he can develop his skills. He could not get an apprenticeship close to home. The only opportunity available to him was working for an unscrupulous barber, who paid him just £1 an hour, despite the employer charging customers for his services. That is not entrepreneurship; that is not business. That is exploitation. That young man wants to learn a trade and build a career, and he should not have to choose between exploitation and abandoning his ambitions. Legitimate businesses, like those mentioned by the hon. Member for Sittingbourne and Sheppey (Kevin McKenna), should not have to compete with such people.

That brings me to the issue of public safety. The House of Commons Library notes that anyone can practise as a hairdresser or barber without holding any recognised qualifications. In a profession involving chemicals, blades and close physical contact with the public, that is increasingly difficult to justify. Most practitioners are highly skilled professionals who take enormous pride in their work, but consumers deserve confidence that those offering professional services have met the appropriate standards and wield their scissors safely. Most members of the public would reasonably assume that someone advertising themselves as a professional hairdresser or barber had demonstrated some level of competence, but that assumption cannot always be made. Poorly applied chemicals can cause burns, overuse of bleach can lead to hair loss and poor hygiene standards can contribute to skin conditions such as ringworm.

A mandatory register would help provide the public with confidence that practitioners had achieved recognised qualifications and, just as importantly, it would enhance the reputation of those who already meet those standards every day. This proposal is practical, proportionate and achievable. We are not trying to create a system from scratch. The register already exists, and the Hair and Barber Council already administers it. The infrastructure is in place. We want to build on the infrastructure that is already there. Mandatory registration would simply strengthen and modernise an existing statutory framework for the realities of today.

The sector estimates that costs to hairdressers would be likely to fall if registration was universal, and that registration could become a recognised prerequisite for securing insurance and demonstrating professional competence. It would improve standards for consumers and it would support legitimate businesses. It could help enforcement agencies to tackle the tax evasion, illegal working, employment status abuse and criminal activity associated with rogue businesses. Indeed, support for the proposal now extends beyond the industry itself. The all-party parliamentary group on anti-corruption and responsible tax, chaired by the hon. Member for Bolton West (Phil Brickell), has highlighted concerns about the extraordinary growth in barbering alongside declining tax enforcement activity.

[Phil Brickell (Bolton West) (Lab)]

I thank the hon. Lady for mentioning the APPG that I chair and the work that we are doing. Does she agree that the Government cannot simply enforce their way out of the problem of illicit activity on the high street and in the sector? When the National Crime Agency conducted its Operation Machinize in November 2025, it visited 2,734 premises up and down the length of the country, but it only closed down 10 of them. Of course, not all of those were hairdressers or barbering salons. Does she agree that a proportionate licensing regime is therefore the right step forward, akin to what the Dutch have done with their Bibob Act, and that that is the right way to seize control of who operates in these sectors and to give the public confidence about who is cutting their hair and who is operating on the high street?

[Vikki Slade]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. The vast majority of people in the sector are doing the right thing. The problem is that they are watching other people in the sector with empty chairs all day, and wondering how on earth they support five or six employees or other people working in the space.

The sector has said that it is happy to share the information so that we can know the scale of the industry, how many hairdressers are working in it and where we need more training places. This is a means of using a register that already exists to professionalise the system and help the Government to move it forward for the future. Rather than relying solely on expensive raids and investigations after problems have emerged, the register could allow for standards to be established from the outset, and for the scale and shape of the sector to be mapped, with sufficient training providers in the right place to help people such as the young man who needs to have training available in Kent.

A survey by the National Hair and Beauty Federation found that support for a mandatory register in the sector is at around 80%. That figure should give Ministers pause. Industries do not often ask Parliament for regulation, yet this one is—not because it wants bureaucracy, but because it wants a sustainable future. Some critics suggest that registration could increase costs or unnecessary burdens, but I disagree. The greatest threat to consumers and the industry is not professionalisation, but the continued erosion of standards, legitimate businesses being forced from our high streets by those willing to ignore the rules, the loss of apprenticeships, the loss of public confidence and the gradual devaluation of a skilled professional.

When the Hairdressers (Registration) Act 1964 was debated, its promoter described hairdressing as both an art and a science. The Government of the day recognised the need for standards, qualifications and public confidence. They were right then, and those principles remain just as relevant today. Making the register mandatory would not create a new principle; it would just bring what was considered a pioneering proposal in 1964 into the 21st century. It has the potential to increase revenues and make it harder for illegal businesses to operate in our town centres. Ultimately, it would support the next generation of hairdressers and barbers. If it succeeds, perhaps that would mean fewer bad hair days for all of us.

When a profession, its employers, its training providers and its representative bodies are all asking Parliament to act, Parliament should listen. Parliament recognised the importance of standards in hairdressing in 1964. The time has come to finish the job that Parliament started more than 60 years ago. I commend these proposals to the House, and I look forward to working with the Minister to deliver them.

--- Later in debate ---

[Kate Dearden]

I thank the hon. Member for sharing those examples from the representatives she meets. We are keen to engage with those and understand the impact. I have given my reflections on those concerns today, but it adds to my wider point that we want to hear that evidence and pick that up.

That is why our focus in the meantime has been on helping those employers directly on apprenticeships, whether that is the £2,000 hiring payment for smaller employers taking on 16 to 24-year-old apprentices, a £3,000 youth jobs grant, no employer national insurance for apprentices under 25, or fully funded apprenticeship training for eligible under-25s. Those measures are important for driving up apprenticeships across the country. In particular, we are working with the sector on assessment reforms so that hair and beauty apprenticeships are rigorous, proportionate and trusted by employers.

On money laundering, serious and organised crime damages our high streets and undermines honest businesses. I thank the hon. Member and my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton West (Phil Brickell) for raising that issue, as tackling it is a priority for the Government. A criminal front can employ a registered barber as easily as anyone else, and a register with reflections on who owns a business, where the money comes from and whether that could even lend a business respectability that it does not deserve, is a key consideration. My hon. Friend mentioned Operation Machinize, which since March 2025 has been led by the National Crime Agency. That has seen over 3,000 suspect high-street premises visited, and nearly 1,000 people arrested. We are building on that with a £30 million crackdown on cash-intensive businesses, including barber shops. That also includes £20 million for law enforcement, £6 million for trading standards, and a new cross-Government high street organised crime unit.

[Phil Brickell]

Will the Minister heed my earlier comment that, although that is all good, the scale of the issue is such that the Government cannot enforce their way out of it? There has to be another way that prevents enforcement agencies from playing whack-a-mole when trying to close down premises that are operating illicitly?

[Kate Dearden]

I know that my hon. Friend is working closely with colleagues across Government on this issue, and I thank him for his continued campaigning and advocacy. We must double the maximum duration of closure orders so that criminal businesses cannot simply reopen while investigations continue.