Shops in England and Wales larger than 280 square metres cannot open for more than six hours on a Sunday — a limit imposed in 1994 and still standing, despite renewed pressure from Selfridges, The Entertainer's sales data and the pedestrianisation of Oxford Street. The debate, staged in City AM's regular forum, pits a retail law specialist against the general secretary of Usdaw, the shopworkers' union. Both make confident claims. Neither can fully prove them.

What do the relaxation campaigners argue?

Caroline Green, a partner at law firm Browne Jacobson specialising in retail, argues the law has been overtaken by three decades of change. "The way in which we shop has changed out of all recognition," she writes, noting that Sunday has become a family shopping day and that part-time working lets retail staff choose their days off more freely.

Her strongest statistical anchor is online commerce: more than a quarter of UK retail sales now take place online. She pairs that with consumer trust data from the State of Ecommerce Trust's 2026 research, which found that over 90 per cent of shoppers are concerned about AI-driven risks — including fake businesses created with AI content (94 per cent), AI-generated phishing emails impersonating retailers (93 per cent) and AI-written fake product reviews (91 per cent).

Her logic: if shoppers distrust the digital channel, physical retail deserves every regulatory advantage. Relaxation, she argues, would help regenerate town centres outside London, following Oxford Street's pedestrianisation, and would serve consumers who refuse to shop online — many of them older.

Note what is absent: no estimate of additional revenue, footfall or jobs from longer Sunday hours. The case rests on choice and regeneration, not measured demand.

What does the union say?

Joanne Thomas, general secretary of Usdaw (the Union of Shop, Distributive and Allied Workers), says her members remain "overwhelmingly opposed" to extending Sunday hours. Longer opening, she argues, would pressure staff to work when they would rather be with family, at community events or at church — the very protections the 1994 Act was designed to provide.

She also raises the displacement question. Small retailers, which can already open longer on Sundays, rely on trade before and after the large stores' permitted window. Extending big-store hours would erode that advantage.

Thomas offers the one hard counterfactual in the debate: the 2012 Olympic Games experiment with extended Sunday trading. Usdaw reps reported that in large stores opening longer during the Games, over two-thirds were quiet or empty during the extra hours, and only five per cent were busy. Many stores cut their hours after a few weeks once longer opening proved to raise overheads without adding customers. "Opening shops for longer does not mean people have more money to spend," she writes.

Her alternative agenda for retail recovery: fairer business rates to level the field with online, action on shop theft and attacks on workers, and support for councils to invest in high streets.

Is there evidence on either side?

One data point has emerged since 2012. The Entertainer, the toy chain whose Christian owners previously refused Sunday trading until September 2025, has recorded a 10 per cent uptick in sales since opening on Sundays. That is a single retailer, over an unspecified period — a case study, not a proof. It may also reflect the Christmas trading calendar rather than a durable structural gain.

The Selfridges chief has separately called for a fresh look at the laws, which leave the department store unable to sell goods before midday on Sunday. He believes the cap limits the high street's potential — an assertion, again, without published figures.

What does this change for retail?

For large stores, a relaxation would mean flexibility they currently lack; for small shops, potentially lost trade in the shoulder hours; for workers, more pressure unless protections accompany any reform. The displacement argument — that longer hours redistribute rather than grow spending — remains untested at national scale since 2012. The Entertainer's 10 per cent offers one counter-example; the Olympic experiment offers the opposite.

What does this change for the debate itself? Very little, so far. The 1994 compromise has survived every challenge since, and no government commitment to revisit it appears anywhere in the discussion. Before 1994, Sunday trading was banned outright — a reminder that rules assumed permanent have fallen before. Whether this one does depends on evidence neither side has yet produced in full.