For millions of television viewers Sir Alan Sugar has become as well known for his outspoken boardroom personality as for his £800m business empire. The no-nonsense entrepreneur has turned reality TV show The Apprentice into compelling viewing, regularly reducing his high-flying candidates to quivering wrecks with his blunt assessments of their failings.

But this time, it seems, Sir Alan may have gone just a little too far - even for him.

Yesterday his hit series, the penultimate episode of which went out on Wednesday night to an audience of millions, became the target of vehement criticism after the businessman was accused of breaching sex discrimination laws during a marathon session of gruelling questioning.

The TUC and the Equal Opportunities Commission were among those warning that the show was sending the wrong signal to business after mother of two Katie Hopkins, who has become a controversial cult star of the series, was quizzed about her children during a set of interviews to choose the two finalists to battle it out for a £100,000 job in Sir Alan's empire.

In the dramatic boardroom showdown, Sir Alan asked Ms Hopkins how she would move her children from her home in Devon to London if she won the contest and asked whether relatives who might look after her children would move. "Exeter, Devon, two little kids. How's life going to be if I say to you: 'Katie right, you're down in London. You've got to move your family, move your location." She suggested that her parents might move to be nearby. He replied: "I'm worried here."

Earlier, his associate property developer Paul Kemsley also grilled Ms Hopkins about her family circumstances after she declared that her children were her priority.

In a surprise twist to Wednesday's episode, Ms Hopkins finally bowed out of the show, saying she did not want to uproot her family.

The series, which started with eight women, three of them single mothers, battling eight men for the elusive job with Sir Alan, is now fighting off accusations that the tactics used were unfair on the female candidates.

Fellow contestant Kristina Grimes, who has a son at university, was also asked about her family circumstances and whether she would move to take up a job with Sir Alan. He said she had brought up her 18-year-old son and added: "From what I can understand you say 'that's it, now it's Kristina time'."

The producers of the show denied any discrimination and insisted that Sir Alan put his candidates under pressure to ensure they were committed to the job if they emerged victorious. A spokesman said Sir Alan wanted an apprentice who would could be "available at any time of day or night".

But yesterday there were warnings that grilling women about their children and family during job interviews could breach sex discrimination laws. TUC General Secretary Brendan Barber said: "The Apprentice is just a show but had last night been a genuine interview, Kristina and Katie could have had real grounds for complaint against Sir Alan.

"Any employer who asks only the female candidates about how their children and personal circumstances may affect their ability to do a job could find themselves in hot water."

Jenny Watson, chair of the EOC, said: "Sir Alan is well aware that women with children can be every bit as successful in business. It might make for great TV, but the programme sends an unfortunate message to other employers that questions about commitment and childcare only apply to women."

The Recruitment and Employment Confederation, the body that represents 7,000 recruitment specialists, said it was "shocked" to see the interview techniques in the programme. Tom Hadley, director of the confederation, said "it simply isn't acceptable to assume that only women have caring responsibilities in the modern world." All those undertaking recruitment should abide by all anti-discrimination rules. "From what was shown on the programme it's doubtful that Sir Alan and his employees were compliant."

Lorely Burt, the Liberal Democrat womens' spokeswoman added: "This is a classic example of the kind of casual discrimination still faced by working women every day."

Last night a spokesperson for the production company Talkback Thames said: "As part of the interview process, Sir Alan and his colleagues interrogated all of the candidates about their commitment to the process and the job. He wanted to put them under pressure to be able to be fully confident that they were serious about the opportunity he was offering them.

"Sir Alan was intent on ensuring that he did not take on an apprentice who later pulled out due to lack of commitment.

"Some of the candidates - including Simon Ambrose - were therefore asked about their living and family arrangements, as it is essential to Sir Alan that his apprentice is close on hand and can be available at any time of day or night if necessary."

news.independent.co.uk

Thats unreal , if going for such a job that may affect "family life" detrimentally certaiinly enables such questions, the prospective employer has every right to ask such info. He would be negligent if he didnt. I bet the rewards will reflect such inconvenience.

Agreed, los. pc gone mad (again).