The Statutory Authority That Isn't

The Public Claim

The Hair & Barber Council presents itself through public-facing materials as a regulatory authority. Their Instagram account features branding stating:

This language creates the impression of regulatory authority - the kind possessed by bodies like the General Medical Council, Solicitors Regulation Authority, or Health and Care Professions Council. These organisations have statutory powers to regulate professions, set mandatory standards, and discipline members.

The question is: does the Hairdressers (Registration) Act 1964 actually grant H&BC these regulatory powers?

What the Law Actually Says

The Hairdressers (Registration) Act 1964 is a short piece of legislation. Its key provisions are:

The Act's functions are limited:

• Creates a body called the Hairdressing Council
• Gives it power to maintain a voluntary register (only for persons "who apply")
• Explicitly prohibits powers over service, charges, wages, or employment conditions

What H&BC Acknowledges

H&BC's own website provides context under "How do we work?":

This statement reveals key facts:

• "Funded by our members and sponsorship" - This is the funding model of a membership organisation, not a statutory regulator funded by mandatory levies
• "Gaining respect and professional recognition" - This describes advocacy work, not regulatory enforcement
• The register functions as a commercial service that H&BC sells to those who choose to join

Comparison With Real Statutory Authorities

How Real Statutory Authorities Work

To understand the difference between H&BC and genuine statutory regulators:

Power/Function	General Medical Council	Solicitors Regulation Authority	Hair & Barber Council
Mandatory registration	✓ Cannot practice without	✓ Cannot practice without	✗ Voluntary only
Statutory standard-setting	✓ Sets medical standards	✓ Sets practice standards	✗ No statutory power
Disciplinary powers	✓ Can strike off doctors	✓ Can strike off solicitors	✗ Can only remove from voluntary register
Enforcement authority	✓ Legal sanctions available	✓ Legal sanctions available	✗ None
Funding model	Statutory registration fees	Statutory practicing fees	Members and sponsors
Accountability	Parliament/Privy Council	Parliament/Legal Services Board	Members (commercial basis)

Real statutory authorities have mandatory registration, enforcement powers, and public accountability. The 1964 Act provides none of these to H&BC.

The Market Effects

The gap between H&BC's public claims and the Act's actual provisions appears to create market effects. Insurance documentation provides an example:

This documentation creates a market dynamic where salon owners may believe H&BC registration is required or standard practice for accessing insurance, when the 1964 Act makes registration entirely voluntary.

The Section 14 Problem

Section 14 explicitly prohibits the Hairdressing Council from having powers over:

• "Questions of service"
• "Charges"
• "Conditions of employment"

Yet H&BC's activities appear to touch all three areas:

• Creating service documentation (insurance forms) with registration requirements
• Charging registration fees for what may appear to be necessary for service access
• Lobbying on employment matters and presenting registration as affecting employment conditions

The question arises: does creating insurance documentation that includes H&BC registration fields constitute controlling "questions of service" in a way Section 14 prohibits?

The Register Is Not Maintained

Beyond the authority question, evidence suggests the register's core function has failed. Basic searches of the public register revealed systematic data quality failures:

If the statutory body cannot maintain an accurate register - its core function under the Act - this raises fundamental questions about its continued existence.

Zero Accountability Mechanism

The 1964 Act created a statutory body but provided no oversight mechanisms:

• No ministerial accountability
• No independent review process
• No complaints mechanism
• No standards of conduct for officers
• No regulatory supervision

This governance vacuum means there is no formal mechanism to address concerns about the register's maintenance, the accuracy of public claims, or conflicts between activities and Section 14 prohibitions.

Case Study: The Statutory Accounts Refusal

The absence of accountability mechanisms is illustrated by what happened when statutory accounts were requested under Section 13(3) of the Act. The section is unambiguous:

When accounts were formally requested in February 2024, the Registrar refused. His refusal letter (March 2024) raises multiple questions:

The Accountability Vacuum

These questions arise from the Registrar's refusal to provide statutory accounts and register. But the 1964 Act provides no mechanism to resolve them:

• No appeal process: If the Registrar refuses a Section 13(3) request, there is no statutory appeal mechanism
• No ministerial oversight: No minister is responsible for H&BC's compliance with the Act
• No independent review: No body can investigate whether the Registrar's interpretation is correct
• No enforcement: Even if the refusal breaches Section 13(3), no mechanism exists to enforce compliance

This creates a situation where a statutory officer can:

• Claim "statutory authority" status publicly while denying "public authority" status when transparency requested
• Use discretionary powers to refuse mandatory duties
• Treat a statutory register as commercial property requiring protection from "competitors"
• Refuse statutory transparency requirements with no oversight or accountability

Whether or not the Registrar's legal interpretations are correct, the absence of any accountability mechanism means these questions cannot be formally resolved. This governance vacuum is inherent in the 1964 Act's structure.

The Act Is Obsolete

Since 1964, comprehensive regulatory frameworks have emerged that supersede the need for a voluntary hairdressing register:

• Public Health Act provisions for premises standards and hygiene
• Local authority licensing through bylaws (e.g., London Local Authorities Act)
• Health & Safety legislation covering workplace and service safety
• Consumer protection laws providing remedies for poor service

These modern frameworks provide comprehensive coverage. The voluntary register serves no regulatory purpose that isn't better addressed by existing legislation.

What Other Countries Do

The UK is unusual in having a statutory body for hairdresser registration. Most comparable jurisdictions operate through:

• Professional associations: Trade bodies that represent members without claiming regulatory authority
• Local licensing: Where specific public health concerns require it (hygiene, sanitation)
• No specific regulation: Hairdressing treated as low-risk personal service under general consumer law

The 1964 Act's light-touch approach (voluntary register, no enforcement powers) made sense when conceived. The problem is that a statutory shell remains while appearing to suggest regulatory authority that doesn't exist.

The Consumer Protection Question

When consumers encounter salons displaying H&BC registration or see "registered with H&BC" in marketing, they may reasonably assume:

• Regulatory oversight exists for this salon
• Standards are monitored and enforced
• Recourse exists if things go wrong
• Registration indicates verified competence

However, H&BC registration actually indicates only that:

• The salon paid a registration fee
• They completed an application process
• They met criteria set by a commercial membership body

There is no statutory standard-setting, no independent oversight, no regulatory enforcement beyond removal from a voluntary register. The gap between consumer expectations and reality raises consumer protection concerns.

The "State Registered" Certificates Problem

H&BC issues certificates to members stating they are "State Registered" hairdressers. These certificates create significant consumer protection concerns.

What "State Registered" Implies to Consumers

When consumers see certificates stating "State Registered" displayed in salons, the term carries specific regulatory implications in UK context:

• Government oversight: Ministerial accountability for the regulatory body
• Mandatory registration: Legal requirement to be registered to practice
• Published standards: Transparent criteria available for public scrutiny
• Public accountability: Published accounts, independent review mechanisms
• Enforcement powers: Statutory sanctions for non-compliance
• Complaints processes: Independent mechanisms to address concerns

Bodies that issue genuine "state registration" - such as the General Medical Council (doctors), Nursing and Midwifery Council (nurses), or General Pharmaceutical Council (pharmacists) - all operate under mandatory registration systems with full accountability mechanisms.

What the 1964 Act Actually Provides

The Hairdressers (Registration) Act 1964 provides none of these features:

• Registration is voluntary: Section 2 allows registration only for those "who apply" - there is no requirement to register
• No ministerial oversight: No minister is accountable for H&BC's operations
• No published accounts: Registrar refuses to provide accounts despite Section 13(3) requirement
• No enforcement powers: Cannot sanction anyone beyond removing from voluntary register
• No regulatory authority: Section 14 explicitly prohibits powers over "questions of service"

Comparison With Genuine State Registration

Feature	General Medical Council (Genuine State Registration)	Hair & Barber Council (1964 Act)
Registration requirement	✓ Mandatory - illegal to practice without	✗ Voluntary - anyone can practice
Ministerial oversight	✓ Accountable to Parliament via Secretary of State	✗ No ministerial accountability
Published accounts	✓ Annual reports and accounts published	✗ Refuses to publish accounts
Independent oversight	✓ Professional Standards Authority oversight	✗ No independent oversight body
Enforcement powers	✓ Can remove license to practice	✗ Can only remove from voluntary register
Fitness to practise	✓ Statutory investigation and sanctions	✗ No statutory powers
Funding	Mandatory registration fees	"Members and sponsorship" (commercial)

H&BC's Own Marketing Materials

H&BC's website marketing reveals how registration is presented to potential members:

This marketing language creates several concerning impressions:

The "Statutory Authority" + "Anyone Can Practice" Contradiction

H&BC states both that they are "the statutory authority" for the profession AND that "anyone can practice as a hairdresser or barber." This reveals the fundamental issue:

• Real statutory authorities with regulatory powers (GMC, NMC, SRA) have mandatory registration - you cannot practice without it
• H&BC acknowledges anyone can practice, proving registration is voluntary and non-regulatory
• Yet they market themselves as "statutory authority" - language that suggests regulatory oversight

The juxtaposition of these claims in the same paragraph appears designed to create impression of regulatory authority while acknowledging no such authority exists.

The "Safe Hands" Claim

The statement "showing you are State Registered proves to your customers they are in safe hands" raises questions:

• What does registration prove? That £70 was paid and an application submitted
• What regulatory oversight exists? None - register shown to contain businesses closed years ago
• What enforcement powers exist? None beyond removal from voluntary register
• What standards are monitored? No ongoing competence checks, no inspections, no regulatory oversight

Suggesting registration indicates "safe hands" when no regulatory oversight exists and register maintenance has demonstrably failed creates potentially misleading impression for consumers.

The Professional Status Implication

The claim "We deserve to be treated as professionals and State Registration does just that" implies:

• State Registration confers professional status
• Non-registered hairdressers lack this professional status
• Registration is marker of professionalism

However, professional competence derives from qualifications (NVQ Level 2/3), training, and experience - not from paying £70 annual fee to voluntary register. A hairdresser with identical qualifications who chooses not to register is equally professional.

The Commercial Membership Benefits

Listed benefits include:

• HR support
• Monthly business webinars
• Access to insurance and legal advice offers
• Certificate to showcase
• "Official Recognition"

This is the benefit structure of a commercial membership organisation or trade association - not a statutory register maintained for public benefit. The Act authorises maintaining a register, not selling commercial membership packages with business support services.

Consumer Protection Law Implications

The use of "State Registered" language on certificates, combined with claims of being "qualified... to practise," raises questions under the Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008:

• Misleading actions (Regulation 5): Does claiming "state registration" when accountability mechanisms don't exist constitute false information likely to cause consumers to make different decisions?
• Misleading omissions (Regulation 6): Do certificates omit material information - namely that registration is voluntary, anyone can practice without it, and no regulatory oversight exists?
• Professional diligence (Regulation 2): Does creating impression of regulatory oversight that doesn't exist contravene standards of special skill and care reasonably expected?

The certificates create false equivalence between H&BC's voluntary register and genuine state registration systems operated by bodies like the GMC, NMC, or GPhC. This appears to mislead both salon owners (who may believe they're obtaining genuine regulatory credentials) and consumers (who may believe they're dealing with a regulated professional).

The "Qualified to Practise" Problem

While the Act authorises H&BC to set qualification requirements and charge fees, the language used on registration certificates creates a distinct legal concern.

What The Act Authorises

The 1964 Act clearly gives H&BC authority to:

• Section 3: Set qualification requirements for registration (apprenticeship or approved training, plus "reasonable and sufficient standard")
• Section 4: Approve training courses, qualifications, and institutions
• Section 6(3): Charge "different fees in different classes of cases"

H&BC's creation of different membership levels (Standard, Senior, Graduate, Associate, Trainee) with different qualification requirements and fees is within these statutory powers.

The Certificate Language Issue

However, H&BC registration certificates contain language that appears to go beyond what the Act authorises:

Why This Language Is Problematic

The phrase "qualified in accordance with... Act... to practise hairdressing" creates impression that:

• The Act creates a qualification-to-practice framework (it doesn't - registration is voluntary)
• Registration is required to practice (it isn't - anyone can practice without registration)
• H&BC has authority to determine who may practice (Section 14 prohibits powers over "service")
• Non-registered hairdressers lack legal qualification (false - no registration requirement exists)

Consumer Protection Implications

When consumers see certificates stating hairdressers are "qualified... to practise" under the Act, they may reasonably but incorrectly believe:

• Registration is legally required to practice hairdressing
• Non-registered hairdressers are practicing without proper qualification
• The Act creates a licensing system with legal requirements
• H&BC has regulatory authority to permit or prohibit practice

All of these beliefs would be incorrect. The Act creates only a voluntary register. Anyone can practice hairdressing without H&BC registration.

The Case for Repeal

The Hairdressers (Registration) Act 1964 should be repealed because:

• Core function has failed: The register is not properly maintained - it contains businesses that closed years ago and members who left 7+ years ago still listed as current
• Superseded by modern regulation: Public Health Act, local authority licensing, H&S legislation, and consumer protection laws provide comprehensive frameworks that serve the public interest more effectively
• Creates confusion: The gap between "statutory authority" claims and the Act's limited provisions appears to mislead salon owners about legal requirements
• Zero accountability: No ministerial oversight, no independent review, no complaints mechanism, no conduct standards
• Section 14 conflicts: Activities appear to touch areas (service, charges) the Act explicitly prohibits the Council from controlling
• Cannot be reformed: An organisation that cannot maintain a voluntary register should not be given expanded powers

The Act creates a statutory body with no genuine regulatory function in 2025. Parliament should repeal this obsolete legislation and allow the sector to operate under modern regulatory frameworks that apply to other personal service businesses.

Alternative Approaches Are Available

Legitimate sector advocacy and professional development can occur through:

• Trade associations: Honest membership bodies that represent sector interests without claiming regulatory status
• Professional bodies: Organisations that provide training, CPD, and voluntary standards without suggesting statutory authority
• Employer organisations: Bodies representing employer interests in policy discussions

All of these models work effectively in other sectors without requiring statutory underpinning or creating confusion about regulatory requirements.