BOLTON West MP Tom Sackville has hit out at a campaign by the green cosmetics chain, Body Shop which aims to change government proposals for tackling violence in the home.

Body Shop has joined forces with a number of organisations including, the Women's Aid Federation, the Domestic Violence Intervention Project, Refuge and Victim Support, to press for a change to the Family Law Bill.

Campaigners claim that the Bill discriminates unfairly against unmarried men and women suffering domestic violence. The shop chain, including its branch in Bolton Market Place, has distributed special postcards to customers to be mailed to the Lord Chancellor calling on him to alter the Bill.

Body Shop says the Bill in its present form ensures that married women who experience domestic violence may request that the abusive partner leaves the family home. But unmarried women do not have the same rights.

A spokesperson said: "It gives the abused married partner rights over the property for a period of time and these rights ought to apply indiscriminately. What is needed is protection for all women married or not, against the atrocity of violence in the home."

Jill Nagy, manager of Body Shop's Bolton branch, expressed her concerns when Mr Sackville visited the shop and handed him a sample of the postcards calling for changes.

But the Junior Home Office minister denied that the Bill was biased against unmarried people, and believes Body Shop's campaign is implicitly anti-marriage. He said people with ownership or other rights in the property will be treated the same by the courts whether they are spouses or cohabitants.

He said: "Some people will have the impression that the Bill will protect women experiencing domestic violence only if they are married. In fact, an occupation order, which would ensure that a violent partner leaves the family home, can be obtained by spouses or cohabitants.

"However, where the victim is unmarried and has no rights in the property, the Courts must consider the fact that the two parties have not given each other the long-term commitment involved in marriage.

"In such cases an occupation order is limited to six months, with one extension for a further six months.

"If the Bill contained no such distinction it would effectively be say that the law no longer took any account of whether people are married or not, which would be unfortunate.

"Marriage has played a vital role all through our history, but is under attack. I believe it is even more important today now that many children are being brought up amid increasing instability with the disastrous consequences we can all see around us."

Converted for the new archive on 14 July 2000. Some images and formatting may have been lost in the conversion.