Hair and Beauty Sector Regulation

Vikki Slade Excerpts

Monday 2nd November 2026 Commons Chamber

[Vikki Slade (Mid Dorset and North Poole) (LD)]

More than 60 years ago, this House passed legislation establishing a register for hairdressers. The purpose was clear: to encourage professional standards; to support qualifications and training; to provide consumers with confidence; and to recognise hairdressing as a skilled profession. The principle was right then, and it remains right today—what has changed is the world around it. The high street has changed. The labour market has changed. Increasingly, the sector itself is warning us that the voluntary system, put in place in 1964, is no longer enough to ensure a sustainable future for hairdressing and barbering.

Tonight, I want to make the case that moving from a voluntary register to a mandatory one is not a radical step, but a natural next step. Crucially, it is not a proposal to create a new register. Parliament has already established that principle; the register already exists. I am simply seeking through mandatory registration to strengthen a framework that Parliament itself put in place when Harold Wilson was first Prime Minister.

The proposal would help to tackle the collapse in apprenticeships, strengthen public safety and support the legitimate businesses that form the backbone of our local high streets. What is perhaps most striking is that the sector itself has now reached this conclusion. The British Hair Consortium, the National Hair and Beauty Federation, the Hair and Barber Council, employers, educators and industry leaders are all increasingly united in calling for a mandatory registration scheme. This is not Government regulation being imposed on an unwilling industry, but a solution designed by the industry for an increasingly urgent problem.

As I am sure you are aware, Madam Deputy Speaker, hairdressers and barbers are far more important than many people appreciate. We all know the feeling of walking out of a salon or barber shop feeling better than when we walked in. Many people value the relationship they have with their hairdresser, such as my cousin Jayne and her daughter, Lucy, who travel several hours every couple of months to see their stylist after he moved to Dorset. Nick supported my mum, Lin, as she lost her hair through chemotherapy, and still managed to make her feel a million dollars.

These professionals improve confidence, wellbeing and self-esteem. These businesses provide social connection. In an increasingly isolated society, they often offer something that technology never can—genuine human interaction. One survey found that 42% of young men had experienced weeks when visiting a barber or personal care professional was the only in-person interaction they had.

--- Later in debate ---

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—(Rachel Hopkins.)

[Vikki Slade]

In my constituency, one such barber is Mike Taylor of Bond’s in Broadstone. He recently created a retro-style, one-to-one barbering space, specifically recognising the role that barbers play in supporting men’s wellbeing and mental health.

Barbering and hairdressing are not just socially valuable but economically vital. The wider beauty and personal care sector contributes more than £28 billion to the UK economy and supports almost 600,000 jobs. These are jobs that cannot be offshored or replaced by artificial intelligence, and they drive footfall to our town centres. When people visit a barber or salon, they often spend money elsewhere on the high street too. They are anchors of our local economies in villages, market towns and city centres. For generations, hair and beauty has acted as a ladder of opportunity. It has provided first jobs for young people, offered flexible careers for parents and carers, and enabled thousands of people to build businesses of their own.

Following the introduction of my private Member’s Bill in September, I was contacted by Nova who owns NovaLux salon in Poole. She reminded me that when we first met 25 years ago, she was an apprentice at Karen’s Hair Design in Broadstone where I was a customer. I ran a business on the same high street. She trained, qualified, gained experience and, ultimately, has built a successful business of her own. Hers is exactly the sort of journey that this sector has made possible for generations.

Nova’s story is the story of hair and beauty, but she shared with me that professional qualified business owners who follow the rules increasingly feel that they are competing against businesses that do not. People like Nova increasingly tell me that the profession that they love is becoming harder to sustain. The concern I hear repeatedly is not about competition but about unfair competition.

[Sir John Hayes (South Holland and The Deepings) (Con)]

The hon. Lady is doing the House a great service. My late sister Joan was a hairdresser. She did an apprenticeship of exactly the kind the hon. Lady describes at the London school of hairdressing—before I was born, actually. She was proud of the skills that she acquired and then used for many years, but in recent years there has been the emergence of some extremely strange and, I would argue, dodgy barber shops, largely foreign, that I suspect have much less to do with hairdressing than with many other nefarious purposes.

[Vikki Slade]

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his intervention. Indeed, the number of barber shops on our high streets has doubled in the last decade or so, and I am fairly sure that the number of us requiring a weekly haircut has not.

The point is not about competition but about unfair competition, alongside what are, it has to be said, quite impossible trading conditions.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I am one of those fortunate people who never has to go to a barber. I do not even use a comb; I just use a chamois, and it keeps me okay.

In recent years, there have been increasing reports across the UK of so-called beauticians carrying out invasive procedures without the necessary medical qualifications. Doctors across the country have warned of the serious, potentially life-threatening consequences of botched treatments. Does the hon. Lady agree that stronger regulation of the cosmetic industry is urgently needed, particularly given that some are carrying out invasive and, in some cases, surgical procedures without the appropriate qualifications or training? The Government must hold these individuals criminally responsible for the damage that they are causing to public health.

[Vikki Slade]

It is interesting; although this campaign is specifically about hair and barbering, there have been calls for a similar registration system for those industries that do piercings, tattoos and that sort of thing, but the industry itself is struggling to work out exactly what it should look like. There is a big issue around insurance, which I will come on to.

According to analysis commissioned by the British Hair Consortium, employee numbers in the sector fell by about 23% in 2025, which is equivalent to the loss of 20,000 jobs. To put it another way, that is the equivalent of 20 employing salons making all their staff redundant every working day for a year.

Industry estimates suggest that more than 70% of those working in the sector are now classified as self-employed. Of course, genuine self-employment is not a problem—many talented stylists and barbers have always chosen to rent a chair as a stepping stone towards their own business—but the concern is about places where self-employment exists entirely on paper.

When I met representatives of the National Hair and Beauty Federation a couple of weeks ago, they described workers who were, in their own words, employees on Friday and self-employed on Monday. Nothing about their work or the business had changed; only their employment status had changed. They continue to work at the same chair in a single salon with no control over their prices and unable to determine their own working practices, but they no longer have sickness cover, pensions or any rights. The change involves reduced tax receipts for the Government and, crucially, fewer apprenticeships—without workers, a business cannot hire apprentices.

It is in apprenticeships where the consequences are most serious. Hairdressing apprenticeship starts in England fell from more than 13,000 in 2015 to just 4,000 in 2023, and forecasts suggest that recruitment could completely collapse within a couple of years if current trends continue. That should concern every Member of the House, because those are not just statistics but lost opportunities for young people, for social mobility and for skills development. The sector reports that about a quarter of its apprentices have special educational needs, which is a significantly higher rate than the wider apprenticeship sector. Many of them have also spent time not in education, employment or training. For thousands of young people who struggle to access traditional academic pathways, the sector has provided a route to qualifications, employment and independence.

[Kevin McKenna (Sittingbourne and Sheppey) (Lab)]

I thank the hon. Member for securing this really important debate. I recently visited Bodylines, a salon and spa in the middle of Sittingbourne, which is run by Liza—with a z, not an s, just to confuse everyone—who made this point very strongly. Bodylines is a great salon that has been there for about 40 years—it is a well-embedded business in the town—and she used to offer lots of training places, but now she simply cannot because she is out-competed by venues that rent chairs by the hour to the pseudo self-employed.

Liza told me how that is a real threat to the future of the industry. My mother trained as a hairdresser in the ’60s before becoming a social worker. As the hon. Member said, these roles are vital for getting people into a whole range of employment opportunities, but without businesses that can support them, they will be gone forever. The pseudo self-employed roles will not persist, either.

The biggest thing Liza raised with me was how much money from VAT the Government are losing. Those other venues are not charging VAT and the responsible self-employed are not paying it, so we are losing money in that way as well. This is something that, on every front, we have to change.

[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.

[The Minister for the Future of Work (Kate Dearden)]

I congratulate the hon. Member for Mid Dorset and North Poole (Vikki Slade) on securing the debate, and I thank her for the constructive and determined way in which she has championed this issue in the House and through her presentation Bill. I also recognise her close work with her constituent Mike Taylor, whom she mentioned this evening, and whose business is an accredited outstanding provider of barbering apprenticeships. I pay tribute to him, and to the hairdressers and barbers whose experiences the hon. Member has shared with the House this evening.

I was brought up around this industry. My mum was a hairdresser—I am very lucky that I can still persuade her to do my hair today—so I recognise how important it is to be a voice in Parliament for hair and beauty, which is an absolute powerhouse of an industry. I am proud to be the Minister responsible for personal care.

Hair and beauty does not just make a significant £28 billion contribution to the economy and provide almost 600,000 jobs; it is also about the salon on the high street that brings people into town, as the hon. Member said. It supports our local communities, helping them to thrive. For many women, it often starts as a passion, a set of professional skills and the ambition to build something of their own, and that can grow into a successful business, creating employment and opportunities for others. With more than 85% of businesses in our sector owned by women, hair and beauty is a powerful example of female entrepreneurship, independence and resilience. Behind every salon is a story of hard work, skill, creativity and determination. I recognise the significance of our industry, which is made up mainly of women, and I thank them for all the support that they give to women across the country. The hon. Member mentioned that, when we get our hair done, they are often our therapists, and we walk out feeling amazing.

Let me turn to where we agree. The harms that the hon. Member described are real. Customers should feel safe and protected in a salon chair, and good employers should not be undercut by those who cheat and do not play by the same rules. Young people need a route into the profession, and criminals should not be hiding behind barber shopfronts on our high streets. The question before the House is not whether those problems matter—of course they do—but whether a mandatory register is the right way to fix them. I will take a number of her arguments in turn, explain where I would like to hear more evidence about what would work instead, and explain what we are prioritising.

It is first worth being clear about what a register is. As the hon. Member mentioned, the Hairdressers (Registration) Act 1964 already provides for a register of qualified hairdressers and barbers. Making it mandatory would record that an individual holds a qualification. Although that would improve visibility, it would not inspect a salon, check who owns a business or where its money comes from, or decide whether somebody is genuinely self-employed. It would not create a single new apprenticeship place. That matters, because each of the harms that she and many other hon. Members have discussed comes from something other than a missing qualification.

On consumer safety, I want to highlight two examples: ringworm and chemical burns, because these are distressing and I do not want to dismiss them for a moment. Ringworm comes from poor hygiene and infection control. A qualified stylist working with unclean equipment poses the same risk as an unqualified one. Chemical burns come from the unsafe use of hazardous products. Every salon—whoever works in it—is already legally required to control these risks under the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974 and the associated regulations, such as the Management of Health and Safety at Work Regulations 1999 and the Control of Substances Hazardous to Health Regulations 2002.

Local authorities already have the powers to enforce health and safety legislation and are responsible for managing hygiene standards in businesses. Where there is evidence that risks are not being properly managed, local authorities can intervene and take appropriate enforcement action to ensure that employers and customers are protected. A register would not send anyone through the door to check, but enforcement does, and where the evidence has shown serious risks of harm, the Government have acted. Last month we launched a consultation proposing that high-risk cosmetic procedures should be carried out only by qualified, regulated healthcare professionals, with providers registered with the Care Quality Commission and criminal penalties for breaches. We have also committed to a licensing scheme for lower-risk cosmetic procedures and have acted because there was strong evidence showing a scale of harm. So far we have not seen comparable evidence for hairdressing, but if the hon. Member has cases—she has raised some tonight—I want my officials to see them.

The hon. Member is right that bogus self-employment, too, is unacceptable. Self-employment, as she mentioned, is a legitimate and long-standing part of the sector, and many workers value that flexibility in their way of working. But no employer should deny the basic rights of people by calling them self-employed when they are not. Here, too, it is not clear how a register might help. A fully qualified registered barber could still be falsely self-employed. What will make a difference is fixing the employment status framework itself. We have published a consultation on targeted reforms, including a proposal of worker status and stronger enforcement. These proposals are designed with workers like those in hairdressing in mind.

Alongside that, the important work of the Fair Work Agency now brings together employment rights enforcement into one place with a dedicated hidden economy team. I know that Fair Work Agency officials have met the sector. His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs will investigate where people have been misclassified for tax purposes and take action to recover the tax and national insurance owed. I am of course happy to keep the hon. Member updated on the employment status consultation and to discuss it further with her.

The hon. Member spoke powerfully about apprenticeships. I will not pretend that the recent figures that she alluded to and that decline we have seen in apprenticeship starts is comforting—it is not. As she mentioned, hairdressing businesses play such an important role in employment and training opportunities, particularly for young people. That is why it is important to strengthen the sector’s skills pipeline for those opportunities for social mobility and career progression. The challenge that employers describe is the cost and capacity to take on and train a young person. It is not clear how a register that requires qualifications may help, and we are mindful of the costs for small businesses that do the training, which she referred to.

[Vikki Slade]

The various agencies, in my discussions with them, have said that the cost of being in the voluntary register is currently about £75. They have suggested that if a mandatory register was extended to all people working in the area, that would reduce the cost to £25. It would cost probably less than the cost of a haircut to be on a register with an organisation, which then itself would be involved in some of those enforcement activities that would benefit the Government.

[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.