The 93% Employment Fall Fabrication

The Headline Claim

In February 2025, the British Hair Consortium (H&BC) published a report by CBI Economics titled "Securing the Future of UK Hairdressing & Beauty." The executive summary contains a shocking forecast:

The report elaborates: "In 2024, 63% of salon workers were self-employed, projected to rise to 76% by 2030, or 88% under the post-budget scenario. This would leave very few in employment, creating a sector largely devoid of the employment rights that come with being an employee."

A 93% employment fall. Nearly complete sector collapse. Catastrophic job losses. It sounds apocalyptic.

But there's a fundamental problem with the numbers used.

Two Very Different Data Sources

Official UK government data shows two strikingly different pictures of sector employment, depending on which source you use:

The CBI Economics report uses the ONS Annual Population Survey figure of 232,700 as its baseline. But HMRC tax records - which capture everyone actually working and paying tax in the sector - show 398,000 workers.

That's 166,000 workers missing from the CBI's baseline.

What HMRC Data Actually Shows

Let's examine the official HMRC data obtained via Freedom of Information requests covering the sector (SIC 96020: Hairdressing and Other Beauty Treatment):

Tax Year	PAYE Employees	Self-Employed	Total Workforce	Change
2018-19	201,000	189,000	390,000	Baseline
2019-20	201,000	201,000	402,000	+12,000
2020-21	175,000	202,000	377,000	-25,000 (COVID)
2021-22	195,000	210,000	405,000	+28,000
2022-23	188,000	210,000*	398,000	-7,000
NET CHANGE	-13,000	+21,000	+8,000	+2.1%

Source: HMRC FOI responses FOI2023/51378 and FOI2024/200347

*Self-employment data for 2022-23 not yet available from HMRC; 2021-22 figure used

The HMRC data tells a completely different story: total employment grew by 8,000 workers (+2.1%) between 2018-19 and 2022-23. Even the COVID-19 dip recovered to exceed pre-pandemic levels.

There is no employment collapse in the official tax records.

Understanding the Data Source Discrepancy

Why do HMRC and ONS show such different workforce totals? The methodologies capture different populations:

Neither dataset is necessarily "wrong" - they measure different things. HMRC captures everyone earning taxable income from the sector. ONS captures people who identify hairdressing/beauty as their primary occupation.

For workforce size and economic analysis, HMRC tax data would generally be considered more comprehensive as it captures the complete population rather than relying on self-identification in surveys.

The CBI report doesn't explain why it chose ONS data over HMRC records, though ONS data is commonly used for labor market analysis and has the advantage of more frequent updates.

Why Use ONS Data Instead of HMRC?

The CBI Economics report bases its analysis on the ONS Annual Population Survey, which shows 232,700 total workers in 2024. The report doesn't explain why they chose this data source over HMRC tax records.

The two sources use different methodologies:

• HMRC: Counts everyone paying tax through hair/beauty work (PAYE Real Time Information + Survey of Personal Incomes)
• ONS: Household survey asking people to identify their main occupation

The ONS survey methodology appears to undercount the sector significantly. Possible reasons include:

• Part-time workers identifying a different "main" occupation
• Multi-job workers not captured if hair/beauty isn't primary income
• Sample-based survey vs. complete population coverage
• Self-employed workers not identifying as "hairdressers" in surveys

Whatever the methodological reasons, starting with a baseline that's 166,000 workers lower than HMRC records would seem to understate the true workforce significantly.

The CBI Report's Own Projections

Using their ONS baseline of 232,700 workers in 2024, the report forecasts forward to 2030. Figure 5 on page 13 shows their projections:

Even using their understated ONS baseline, the report's own forecast shows total workforce declining by less than 1% (232,700 → 231,000).

So where does "93% employment fall" come from?

The Statistical Sleight of Hand

The trick is remarkably simple: they measured the decline in traditional employees (people on PAYE), but called it an "employment fall" to make it sound like the entire workforce is disappearing.

This is like measuring the decline in typewriter sales, calling it an "office equipment collapse," and ignoring that everyone bought computers instead.

What's Actually Shown in the Data

The report's analysis reveals what appears to be a shift in employment type, not employment volume:

Metric	CBI Report (ONS Data)	HMRC Tax Records
Baseline Total Workers	232,700 (2024)	398,000 (2022-23)
Projected Total (2030)	~231,000	Not available
Employees (Current)	86,800	188,000 (2022-23)
Employees (2030 Forecast)	6,468	Not available
Self-Employed (Current)	145,200	210,000 (2021-22)
Self-Employed (2030)	225,532	Not available
Change in Total	-0.7%	+2.1% (2018-23)
Headline Claim	"93% employment fall"	No equivalent claim

Both data sources show a consistent pattern: traditional employees decline while self-employment grows. Total workforce remains stable or grows.

The difference is in the baseline numbers and how the trend is described.

The Historical Picture

Looking at the actual historical data from HMRC tax records, the sector shows modest growth:

This growth masks two opposing trends:

• PAYE employment: Declined from 201,000 to 188,000 (-6.5%)
• Self-employment: Grew from 189,000 to 210,000 (+11.1%)
• Net effect: Total workforce increased by 8,000 (+2.1%)

There has been a significant shift away from traditional employment toward self-employment models. This is a real trend with genuine policy implications for worker protections and tax compliance.

But it's not an employment collapse. The workforce is stable to growing while restructuring how people work.

Why The Language Matters

The report consistently uses "employment" when referring specifically to "traditional employees," which creates a different impression:

When most readers see "employment" they would reasonably interpret it as "jobs" or "total workers." The more precise term "traditional employees" or "PAYE employment" would convey a different meaning.

The distinction matters significantly. Saying "traditional employment is declining 93% while self-employment grows" describes a labor market restructuring. Saying "employment falls 93%" suggests mass job losses.

The Policy Implications

The "93% employment fall" claim appears throughout the report's policy advocacy:

When presented to Treasury officials, MPs, or journalists, a 93% figure would naturally create urgency. It suggests an industry in freefall requiring emergency intervention.

A more precise statement - "traditional employment models declining while self-employment grows, with total workforce stable" - frames the issue differently. That describes a shift in employment structures rather than sector collapse, leading to different policy conversations about worker protections and business models rather than crisis intervention.

The Disguised Employment Issue

The report has a legitimate concern about "disguised employment" - workers classified as self-employed who should legally be employees. This is a real problem that costs the Treasury tax revenue and denies workers employment rights.

But the 93% figure doesn't measure disguised employment. It measures their forecast of how the employment model will shift under current policies.

From page 8: "Disguised employment is where someone fulfils the same role as a permanent employee but is labelled as an independent contractor or freelancer. This can be done to avoid paying VAT, by staying under the threshold, or employer national insurance."

That's a compliance and enforcement issue. Not a 93% employment collapse.

What Other Sectors Show

Shifts from traditional employment to self-employment aren't unique to hairdressing. Consider:

• Taxi/Private Hire: Mass shift to Uber model (self-employment)
• Delivery Sector: Growth of Deliveroo/Just Eat model
• IT Contractors: Long-standing high self-employment rates
• Construction: CIS scheme creates large self-employed workforce

In none of these sectors would you claim a "93% employment fall" by measuring only traditional employees. You'd say "the employment model is changing" and debate whether that's good or bad for workers and tax collection.

The Mathematical Impossibility

Here's another way to see the problem. If employment truly fell 93%, here's what would happen:

The report forecasts 231,000 workers. They claim 93% decline. These numbers cannot both be true.

Why Legitimate Reform Gets Undermined

The frustrating part is that H&BC has legitimate arguments for VAT reform:

• Labour-intensive businesses are hit harder by VAT than goods-based retail
• VAT threshold bunching is a real problem causing market distortions
• Disguised employment does exist and costs the Treasury revenue
• Split-rate VAT might help address these issues

These are reasonable points that deserve serious policy debate. Ireland implemented reduced VAT for hairdressing in 2011. Other countries have split VAT rates. There's precedent for treating labour-intensive services differently.

But when you build your advocacy on fabricated statistics - claiming 93% employment collapse when your own report shows the workforce barely changes - you undermine the entire case.

Treasury officials and MPs aren't stupid. When they discover the 93% figure is misleading, it casts doubt on everything else H&BC claims.

What Should Have Been Said

An honest version of this analysis would read:

That's still a story. It's still a policy concern. It just doesn't sound like the apocalypse.

And maybe that's the point. A measured statement about employment model shifts doesn't generate the same urgency as "93% employment collapse."

The Broader Pattern

This isn't H&BC's only fabricated statistic:

• 24% bankruptcies claim: Impossible (data doesn't exist by sector)
• Zero apprenticeships by 2027: Projection to zero presented as forecast
• £2.4bn "lost VAT": Based on fictional inflation-adjusted baseline
• 93% employment fall: Confusing employees with total employment

Each claim follows the same pattern: take a real trend, exaggerate it mathematically, present the exaggeration as inevitable disaster, use it to justify policy demands.

The employment fall is particularly egregious because the correction is in their own report. Anyone reading Figure 5 carefully can see total workforce remains at 231,000. But they bet that MPs and journalists would only read the executive summary.