Should hairdressers be state registered?
FOR: Celebrity hairdresser and Hairdressing Council ambassador Andrew Barton
"The Hairdressing Council was set up in 1964 by an act of parliament to create official registration for those that practise hairdressing.
The Hairdressing Council believes in the professionalism of hairdressing and its campaign is to raise standards, making the industry self regulated. Ideally, every hairdresser should be state registered which would eliminate cowboys who practise hairdressing with no qualifications or experience whatsoever. Being state registered means a person is officially certified by law as qualified to practise on the public.
"All hairdressers should become part of this industry body, as it denotes that you are professional, qualified and experienced. Professional reputations are destroyed by unprotected hairdressers and as an industry we have to do all we can to work within a recognised, regulated professional body.
"We all recognise that British hairdressing is world famous, but did you know that we're one of the only countries in Europe to be unregulated, with a voluntary system of registration rather than mandatory. We need to pull together to make sure that British hairdressing stays famous for all the right reasons.
"Less than 10% of hairdressers in the UK are registered and I find this shocking. In many other countries, registration is compulsory. In the UK, it's not a question of if registration will legally be required but when.
"By not being registered, hairdressers are denying themselves professional status and denying the public the assurance they deserve. Being registered unites us as an industry; once we are united then we have a voice in parliament to change things that we don't like such as parliamentary rules, new legislations and policies.
"There are many non-state registered hairdressers that practise great hairdressing and run successful salons, but my argument is about us becoming a true industry voice. Registration is about making it more difficult for low quality salons to practise. It's ridiculous that anyone can open a salon - creating registration, and ultimately regulation, makes sense."
AGAINST: Winner of HJ's 2009 Salon of the Year 1, Michael Van Clarke from Michael Van Clarke, London
"I'm all for increasing professionalism in the industry, but I'm not sure how this furthers that aim, especially as most things controlled by government aspire to the dizzy heights of mediocrity. Hasn't this over-reaching state made enough of a mess in this country?
"If I register does it mislead the paying public into thinking I am safe with their hair when really I may just know how to fill in a form? Does anyone come and test me? Who decides whether I'm good enough to take someone else's money? Quasi-state bodies have issued more than 400,000 hairdressing NVQs. We know we have a few hundred thousand hairdressers qualified in ticking boxes, but do we know if they are all great with hair? Apparently not, according to consumer surveys.
"If applying tint will require registration, does that kill off home hair colourants? The argument about eliminating tabloid headlines of cowboy hairdressing disasters and the £20,000 lawsuits bothers me too. All doctors are state registered and we currently have more than £3bn of outstanding lawsuits for medical negligence against the NHS. I doubt claims against hairdressers come anywhere near those proportions. Another argument is that we are the only country left in the world that doesn't have compulsory registration, but then we are also seen as the world leaders in our profession. Any connection?
"We have several hairdressing bodies that do a good job, such as the NHF and The Fellowship for British Hairdressing. I question whether we need additional political interference. Once the state gets involved people start to play 'chase the subsidy' instead of chasing excellence and real progress. Our industry certainly doesn't need any more of that. I need more convincing."
What do you think? Join the debate on the HJi community
