PLANNED European legislation aimed at preventing discrimination at work could restrict other freedoms, a leading North-East academic has warned.

The Government is due to complete the latest round of consultation today on the EU Employment Directive, legislation it is considering adopting to stop employers discriminating against staff on the grounds of religion, belief or sexual orientation.

But legal experts at The Christian Institute say the new powers will "seriously undermine" religious freedom.

Professor Ian Leigh, from Durham University, a leading human rights lawyer, said last night: "The Government regulations have all the potential to seriously undermine freedom of association for religious people. They place the modern concept of equality over and above religious liberty."

The Christian Institute fears it could encounter scenarios where it may have to retain staff whose ideas conflict with the church's.

It said that under the proposed rules, they would be unable to sack an employee, who against its firmly held beliefs, left their husband or wife for a member of the same sex.

The group said it could also find itself unable to sack a church worker who abandoned his faith and became an atheist or Satanist.

Director of The Christian Institute, Colin Hart, said political parties would be exempt from the regulations, which would allow them to dismiss staff who supported rival political parties.

He said: "No religious organisation can maintain its ethos if it is forced to employ staff who profoundly disagree with the whole basis of the organisation. That is why the Labour Party only employs card-carrying party members."

But civil liberties group Liberty said there was an argument that the legislation could be used to the opposite effect, if groups could be exempt from such regulations.

Roger Bingham, from the group, said: "Basically, this is a framework for combating discrimination on the grounds of belief or religion, which I think most people do agree is a pretty reasonable thing to do.

There is a contrary argument. Some people say there is a danger this would provide a defence to allow some of the more extreme or fundamental religious groups to be extremely and unreasonably restrictive in who they employ, getting exemptions so they can narrow down who they would take on.

"So there is very much two sides to the coin."