Prime Minister David Cameron (pictured) has signalled that he supports the right of Christians to wear crosses at work, despite the fact that his Government will argue against this very right before the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR).

On Monday a spokesman for Mr Cameron said: “The PM’s personal view is that people should be able to wear crosses,” said the spokesman. “Our view is that the Equality Act as it stands should allow people to express their views in this kind of way.”

Two women who have been barred from wearing the cross by their employers are taking their campaign to the European Court of Human Rights.

Judges in Britain have ruled against Nadia Eweida, a British Airways check-in clerk, and Shirley Chaplin, a nurse, who wanted to wear the cross at work.

A source close to Mr Cameron said that the court might agree with the claims from the two women and clarify the right of Christians to wear the cross in a way that does not “cause offence to others,” the Daily Telegraph reports.

However, if the court refused to support the women, “we would have to consider what action we might take”, the source said. It was understood that one option could be to legislate.

The spokesperson added that Mr Cameron would consider changing the law to protect the right of Christians to wear the cross at work if European judges fail to reinforce religious freedom, his spokesman said. 

However the Government’s official submission to the Strasbourg court dismisses their argument as “ill-founded”.

The response, prepared by the Foreign Office, says: “In neither case is there any suggestion that the wearing of a visible cross or crucifix was a generally recognised form of practising the Christian faith, still less one that is regarded (including by the applicants themselves) as a requirement of the faith.”

However, the Prime Minister’s office said the Government was required to pass on the ruling of the British court to the European Court in Strasbourg and is awaiting its judgment.

Mrs Eweida’s case dates from 2006 when she was suspended by BA for breaching the company’s uniform code. Mrs Chaplin was barred from working on wards by Royal Devon and Exeter NHS Trust after refusing to hide the cross she wore on a necklace chain.

The pair, and two other Christians, are bringing legal action against the UK because they believe British laws have failed to protect their human rights, specifically the right to freedom of religion.

Their lawyers argue that article nine of the Human Rights Act should allow them to “manifest” their beliefs by wearing items, including the cross, which are not a “requirement of the faith”. 

The subject was raised yesterday in the Commons. Eric Pickles, the Communities Secretary, told MPs: “Providing any object doesn’t get in the way of doing the job, a discreet display of someone’s religion is something we should welcome.” 

However, in document seen by The Sunday Telegraph the Government argues that because it is not a “requirement” of the Christian faith, employers can ban the wearing of the cross and sack workers who insist on doing so.

The Strasbourg case hinges on whether human rights laws protect the right to wear a cross or crucifix at work under Article 9 of the European Convention on Human Rights.

It states: “Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief, and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief, in worship, teaching, practice and observance.”

The Government’s official response states that wearing the cross is not a “requirement of the faith” and therefore does not fall under the remit of Article 9.

Lawyers for the two women say that Christians are given less protection than members of other religions who have been granted special status for garments or symbols such as the Sikh turban and kara bracelet, or the Muslim hijab.

The Government’s response states: “The Government submit that… the applicants’ wearing of a visible cross or crucifix was not a manifestation of their religion or belief within the meaning of Article 9, and…the restriction on the applicants’ wearing of a visible cross or crucifix was not an ‘interference’ with their rights protected by Article 9.”

The Government has also set out its intention to oppose cases brought by two other Christians, including a former registrar who objected to conducting civil partnership ceremonies for homosexual couples.

Lillian Ladele, who worked as a registrar for Islington council in north London for 17 years, said she was forced to resign in 2007 after being disciplined, and claimed she had been harassed over her beliefs.

Gary McFarlane, a relationship counsellor, was sacked by Relate for refusing to give sex therapy to homosexual couples.

Christian groups described the Government’s stance as “extraordinary”.