Essex businessman Sir Alan Sugar says that equal opportunity laws mean many women will find it harder to get a job.

He believes interviewers would like to ask women if they are planning on getting married and having children, but because the current laws don't allow this, he says companies would just not employ them. Is Sir Alan right in saying maternity laws have gone too far?

YES says TOM KING, Echo business writer

WOMEN are powering ahead in the workplace. Years have passed since I have come across a case of a woman not being able to get the job or career move that she wants, and is qualified for, because of anti-female prejudice.

Some of the laws that were put in place in order to break down bigotry against women now look pretty pointless, even cumbersome, and the rule against broaching the subject of motherhood in job interviews is a good example.

It is only fair play that potential employers should have some insight into an interviewee's future plans, not least so that they can help them develop their careers.

If bosses try to curtail a woman's promotion opportunities because they fear a sudden announcement of maternity leave, they can and do find themselves landed with all the misery of an employment tribunal.

What I have come across on more than one occasion is the situation where a company is put into a difficult position because a key member of staff suddenly and unexpectedly claims maternity leave. Indeed, on at least one occasion it may even have contributed towards bringing a firm to its knees.

Sir Alan Sugar is absolutely right. Interview panels will tend to play safe. The interview process, before someone is employed, is the point at which they have the most power.

Banned from asking the motherhood question, they will play safe and veer away from employing a young female member of staff for a key role.

The result is an application of the law of unintended consequences. A measure put into place to protect women from prejudice actually creates a bias against them.

A woman of childbearing age who has failed a job interview can't prove prejudice on the grounds of potential motherhood, when the question has never been raised. The rule is also yet another case of the way that red tape and politically correct legislation interferes with the employer-employee relationship.

These days, good firms welcome women who have joint family and career plans, and they make arrangements accordingly. As for those firms that don't take such an enlightened modern attitude - well, who would want to work for such dinosaurs in the first place?

NO says EMMA CLARK, founder of Southend-based lingerie company Max Cleavage.

WE TEND to have young girls apply for jobs here. We don't specify but that's just who replies to our job ads.

I have had other business owners in the past comment that "we must be mad" because they believe their careers will be short lived as they will want to have babies and settle down. I have heard other companies only employ mums with older children, as they deem them as far more reliable and focused. However, we have found to the contrary. We've had some very reliable young girls work with us who are very focused and we feel that if in the time they are with us, they add something to the business then we're happy.

We realise that not everyone sees their job as a job for life as many factors apply, like many people wish to travel or return to studying, not just have babies. We also employ mums with small children who love coming in to work as they see it as their time' and we have found that they are focused and take the job very seriously. Being a mum myself, I wouldn't like to think of an employer rendering me unemployable because I'm able to give birth!

If that is the view of some companies' personnel departments then I think they've forgotten that we work to live and life is about living, taking pleasure in your children, and not just working!

In response to Alan Sugar's belief that managers should be allowed to ask women at interview how they would "cope" with the demands of work and home, well this seems ridiculous as you are hardly likely to say "if I have a baby I will have to give up my job as I want to be a stay-at-home mum, oh and by the way we are trying at the moment!" I don't see how that question in an interview would make any difference at all.

Being a smaller company we are probably more realistic and much more laid back with our approach to employees. We understand that it's good to offer flexible working hours and not to have any hard and fast rules.

If you have a great member of staff that is with you for a couple of years then that's fantastic.

If they leave to have a baby, travel, study or get another job then so be it but we wouldn't dream of denying anybody a job just because they are female and of a certain age. How short-sighted!