Statistics presented to Parliament, the Treasury and the press by industry bodies are compared here with the HMRC, ONS, DfE and Hansard sources they cite. Each page shows its working and links to the data. Where a page has been corrected, the correction is logged on the page and on this one.
Written by Andrew Clelland, a former salon owner and wholesaler with no industry funding. Corrections are welcome and are made publicly. This site sets out what is wrong with the figures; what the author would do instead — VAT exemption for the sector and a universal practitioner licence collected through HMRC — is at campaign.salonlogicpro.co.uk.
Last updated 11 September 2026
The three pages most relevant to the Barbers and Hairdressers (Registration) Bill due to be presented on 14 September and the Budget on 28 October.
What registrants were told on 8 September about the bill, and what the Act, Hansard and the minister's written answers of the same day say. The word "voluntary" is not in the 1964 Act.
Parliament has considered compulsory registration in every generation since 1936 and declined it each time. The dated record with Hansard references, the Act's Schedule, and who the Act actually entitles to register.
The £2.4bn, 93%, "zero by 2027" and £14.4bn claims traced to their sources, reproduced where they can be, and tested against outturn where it now exists.
The Hairdressers (Registration) Act 1964, the body it created, and the campaign to make registration with that body compulsory.
Ninety years of the same request, the same answer, and the same body. Timeline 1922–2026 with Hansard references; the Schedule; section 3; the September 2026 bill.
Sixteen claims from the recording, each tested. What a presentation bill is; what compulsion would actually require; what was not said.
The Council calls itself "the only statutory authority" for hairdressers. The Act creates a register nobody is obliged to join, and section 14 denies the Council the powers it claims.
Section 13(3) requires the Council to furnish its accounts on request. It declined, citing section 10, which concerns certificates. The correspondence, annotated.
The figures used to support VAT reform and compulsory registration, traced to the tables they came from. In most cases the data is real and the reading is wrong.
£2.4bn is a modelled shortfall against a CPI trend, not a measured loss. What CBI Economics was given, what it did with it, and how the forecasts compare with outturn.
The report's own forecast has the workforce almost unchanged to 2030. The 93% measures employees only and ignores the self-employed. HMRC shows employment stable.
A trend line extended to zero, presented as a forecast. DfE starts recovered to 2019 levels in 2023–24.
The Insolvency Service does not collect personal bankruptcies by sector. Company insolvencies in the sector run at 1.3%.
"Salons pay three to five times more tax than retail." Compared with other labour-intensive services at the same turnover, salons sit second lowest.
What it costs to employ a stylist, what a service actually returns, and where the pressure on salon margins comes from.
The National Living Wage has risen 119% since 2009 against 69% for sector prices. That gap, not a collapsing industry, is the mechanism, and a 10% VAT cut is absorbed by it within two to four years.
Every figure in the "£33,000 stylist" claim checked against April 2026 statutory rates, including the Employment Allowance nobody mentioned.
A viral post leaves £22 from a £200 service. VAT taken at the wrong point, commission on the wrong figure, NI counted twice. Corrected: about £66.
How many apprentices a VAT cut would fund at the rate actually being campaigned for, by salon turnover and region, on HMRC 2023–24 and ONS March 2025 figures. Adjust the inputs yourself.
How the figures travelled from industry reports into government meetings and national newspapers, and who was in the room when they did.
Forty-nine transparency returns, 10,521 meetings, thirty-four with the sector. The same five organisations at every roundtable since 2023; no body for the self-employed majority in any of them.
Claims made in Treasury meetings and select committee evidence, set against the official data, with the commercial interests that were not disclosed.
A complaint submitted on 30 October 2025 setting out, with HMRC, ONS and Companies House sources, where the paper's coverage of the British Hair Consortium's claims departed from the record. No substantive response; three further articles followed. The complaint and the evidence are published in full.
Where the government has stated its position, and what is due next. Updated as the record changes.
| Date | Source | What it says |
|---|---|---|
| June 2025 | House of Commons Library briefing | No mandatory practitioner licensing; the 1964 Act provides a voluntary register; protection through existing consumer, health-and-safety and local authority law |
| January 2026 | Written answer, UIN 105882 (Kate Dearden) | No plans to introduce mandatory registration |
| 8 September 2026 | Written answers, Kate Dearden MP, to three Members | "No current plans for additional regulation for hairdressers and barbers, but we remain open to evidence"; engagement through the Personal Care Sector Roundtable |
| Date | Event | Status |
|---|---|---|
| 14 September 2026 | Barbers and Hairdressers (Registration) Bill — presentation, first reading. Long title, presenting Member, supporters and second-reading date to be taken from the Order Paper | Pending |
| 28 October 2026 | Budget. Any sector figure that reaches the Red Book, a speech or a written answer will be sourced and, if necessary, corrected here within the week | Pending |
| November 2026 | DfE full-year 2025/26 apprenticeship starts — the second outturn test of the "zero by 2027" projection | Pending |
Every substantive correction made to a page on this site, with the date. Each page also carries its own notice.
| Date | Page | Correction |
|---|---|---|
| Sept 2026 | Century-Long Struggle | The £2.4bn was wrongly described as an annual cost and compared directly with HMRC's £22.7m compliance gap; the two measure different things. "Void" and "deliberate obstruction" replaced with what the record supports. "Open to challenge" removed: Schedule 1 para 10(3) protects the Council's proceedings from defects in appointment. Two pre-war Lords bills added to the timeline; Hansard references supplied throughout. |
| Sept 2026 | CBI Economics Deconstruction | The £14.4bn productivity figure had been described as having no stated method; its method is stated and has now been reconstructed. Apprenticeship section rebuilt on the report's own Table A. Provenance of the figures CBI Economics was given set out; the 11%-to-23% employment comparison traced across four data windows. |
| Sept 2026 | Homepage | Summaries rewritten to match the current text of each page. Two pages previously filed under "Statistical Fabrication" are now filed under "The statistics": the data behind them is real and the misreadings are the point. |
Each page ends with a source list. Where a figure comes from a public dataset, the extract is in the data archive with the table and window identified. Where it comes from a Freedom of Information response, the response is published in full.
Write to contact@salonlogicpro.co.uk. Corrections of fact are made and logged. Requests for a right of reply are accepted.