Question follow-through · 29032
Personal Care Services: Tax Avoidance
To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, what estimate HM Revenue and Customs has made of tax non-compliance within the hair and barbering sector, including the use of self-employment and rent-a-chair arrangements.
About this written question
A written question asks a government minister for information in writing. Parliament publishes the question and any answer.
- Answering body
- Treasury
- Tabled
- 10 Sept 2026
- Target answer date
- 14 Sept 2026
- Answer
- 17 Sept 2026 · 7 calendar days after tabling
Elapsed calendar days describe the record timeline, not whether Parliament considers an answer on time.
Votes on this topic
- Draft Code of Practice on Electronic and Workplace Ballots for Statutory Trade Union Ballots · 15 Jul 2026
- Draft Trade Unions (Permissible Means of Voting) and Employment Rights (Unfair Dismissal) (Amendment) Order 2026 · 15 Jul 2026
- Taxation (Energy and Vehicles) Bill Committee: New Clause 5 · 1 Jul 2026
These Commons divisions share a topic label. The question did not necessarily lead to a vote.
Recorded timeline
10 Sept 2026
Question tabled
To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, what estimate HM Revenue and Customs has made of tax non-compliance within the hair and barbering sector, including the use of self-employment and rent-a-chair arrangements.
14 Sept 2026
Target answer date
Date supplied by the official written-questions record.
17 Sept 2026
Answer published
The ‘rent-a-chair’ model is a legitimate business model used in the hair and beauty sector. Where it is applied correctly, individuals will be self-employed for tax purposes. Whether an individual is employed or self-employed is not a matter of choice but...
Official data retrieved 25 Sept 2026.
Later records
Possible follow-up questions
Strong links require the same MP, department and exact heading. Other same-department questions are shown as unreviewed candidates, not as confirmed follow-ups. No debate link is asserted unless a stable source relationship exists.
No later same-department questions indexed.
This is an absence in covered public data, not evidence that no follow-up occurred elsewhere.