i agree with what you say. employers should be allowed to ask- it is a fair question. and women should discuss their plans openly. it's not fair that women who do happen to have done well in their career exploit their employers by having lavish maternity arrangements, which make other employers wary of hiring women. so women who would not exploit their employers can be discriminated against. i think this situation is bad. the law needs to change to make talking about these things in interviews less taboo.

reema, nottingham,

Three principles are at work here:

(1) The timeless government principle, WE make the rules, YOU pay for them;

(2) the fallout from an ideological drive to abolish the difference between the sexes.

(3) the irresolvable conflict between the individual and the social. Even among bumblebees, the workers stage a revolution against the queen once they get the chance.

Robert H. Olley, Reading, Berks, UK

Minette knows perfectly well that 1 in 4 pregnancies end in miscarriages. Most women don't tell anyone they are pregnant (and don't emotionally commit to a pregnancy) until they have passed the 13 week stage, because they know the risk of miscarriage is extremely high.

But yes, the rest of the article continues in the same vein. Spiteful drivel. Women don't stop needing to earn a living when they get pregnant, so they are still entitled to apply for jobs. Unless of course, Minette is suggesting that all pregnant women immediately be entitled to claim a decent living wage from the state? Hmm, thought not.

Bella Ciao, London, UK

Ralf from Dublin, I am very, very tired of hearing this hackneyed old question trotted out every time. Listen carefully: I, in common with millions of others, am paying for my own pension, okay? This is because I don't want to live in the poverty that pensioners live in now. Plus I'm paying for maternity and child benefits, and for the education of other people's children though my taxes - and I have no say in this. Happy now?

sara, london,

I run a small business with 12 staff. I took on a woman to manage my growing business. Within months she takes 6 mths Maternity Leave and I can't get a temp replacement with her experience or qualifications. Her colleagues suffered, customer service suffered, the business went down. I suffered with ill health through worry. She demanded reduced hours on return to work and I can't say no or she takes me to Tribunal. 6 months later and she is pregnant again. My staff are leaving 'cos they are fed up with the increased workload. I can take on more but I still can't find a temp for the manager.
I am facing a ruined business and making all my staff redundant due to one woman and her Maternity Rights. I'm held to ransom and I'm sure there are plenty more stories like mine. Other peoplesay don't take on a woman again and I'm inclined to think they have a good point. Pay for your own children or get the government to pay, it's not my fault men can't earn a living wage.

Grace Walker, Manchester, UK

I was really offended by this article. We are in 2008, Western countries don't make babies anymore (or only a few of them) and still we consider to have a baby a personal thing more than a social thing. I don't know if Ms Marrin has children but I think she should really be ashamed to say that women exploit their employers. Children are not a burden but the basis of the society, otherwise we'll all die. Simple as it is.

Monica, Milan, Italy

Perhaps the media industry is more at fault to persist in keeping up the myth of hiring youthful looking newscasters. The culling that took place by the BBC of experienced news presenters who had demonstrated loyalty and service should heed a warning to Channel 5. No awkward questions and looming childbearing would be necessary with professional women of a certain age. It's not the fact of having a child, or the age at which does, it's the hassle factor for those left behind at work by the fallout when they leave. The rehiring, re-teaching and general integration has to be done all over again. I'm sure whatever the motive was behind Kaplinsky's move to Channel 5, it will now present her with even more challenges that are beyond her wildest dreams with a little one in tow.....

J. Kijak, Derby,

Spot on Minette. You are very brave to say what many think and speak only in private. The effect on small businesses can be terrible. If it's government led policy then let's see government money so the cost is shared.

Dave, Cardiff,

Ridiculous article - who do expect to pay your pension?

Ralf, Dublin, Ireland

The Company willing to spend a million a year on a 'newsreader '
deserves everything it doesn't get.

Douglas Miller, fulham,

I agree totally with PMD, England, I am also in the same position, wrong side of 40 trying to get a decent well paid job for which I am aptly qualified, but being passed over time and time again for younger, (more?) attractive women.
Where is my equality? I have had my children and now need a decent job to pay my rent people!!

JJ, Auckland, NZ

Heaven forbid the woman can actually enjoy her pregnancy, exercise her legal rights and return to work at a time that's appropriate for her and her baby. The viewing figures have risen by 72% since her appointment - that's why they hired her. If and when she decides to return to work is her business, and that of her employer. Employees are dispensable, mothers aren't!

K. Jordan, Abergavenny,

It's difficult to see why younger women should be singled out here. All groups have particular 'risks' from an employer's perspective: young men are more likely to miss work through injury, old men through sickness and A|an Sugar through TV presenting. Maternity leave is actually much easier to adjust to than many of these, since it's fixed-term and predictable in terms of dates. On the whole, it's sensible for employers offering long-term or permanent contracts to assume that the total value added to the company by their employee over the course of their working life compensates for such absences. If it weren't, they shouldn't be employing them.
The same applies to Ms Kaplinsky's alleged responsibilityt o inform her employer about her plans in order to prevent employers generally discriminating. No other employee is expected to think about how they represent a particular 'group' Minette Marrin has assigned them too. Basic sexism in this article's picking of targets undemrines it.

Ewan Johnson, Lancaster, Lancashire

For one woman who might have taken illegitimate advantage of her pregnancy regarding her career, how many (still) suffer near life-long discrimination due to the fact that their potential pregnancy is a potential threat to businesses' organisation? I assume most British women are not hiredfor their "ferociously sexy on-the-ball" qualities and therefore can hardly refelct onthe shmeful attitude of failing to live up to their professional qualities.
I also wonder: would the author waking up to one of these still chilly april spring days conclude that global warming is definitely no longer a concern?
Sinon, always nice to see (some) Times' posters find somethnig to tak exemple of in the french model. By the way proper communal faciliies go with a certain level of taxes and of "social rights"...

Pierre75, Paris, France

It is infuriating for employers and co-workers many of whom are women themselves, when woman employees milk the system (no pun intended) by maxing out on maternity leave having already used up their quota of doctors apointments scans etc. Yet we need women to reproduce or there wont be enough people to pay for the pensions of the future. We havent reached the robot and clone stage yet. Woman have for so long been kept back in the workplace and even yet comparitively few make it to the top. Positive discrimination by way of maternity benefits in the workplace may be the Frankenstein of our own making. My own childs education suffered from the irresponsibile actions of two teachers who in both the primary six and primary seven years took maternity leave mid year presumibily leaving the summer holidays to catch up on their tans! Perhaps maternity leave should be without pay. If you want a family then let it be at your own expense. This would reduce the leave taken drastically

A Morrow, Bangor,

If married men have the exact same treatment as women (in regard to maternity leaves and time off work), the discrimination against women in this respect will ceased. Make it complusory for men to take paid-time off work.

as a result, employers will treat this as a general cost of running business in UK. It will cost the UK economy in the long run, but hey, political correctness is more important these days.

Mak, Telford, Telford

Now, I don't want children in the forseeable future (doing Brownies is more than enough for me at 21), but I am wondering exactly what all the anti-women in the workplace commenters count as "childbearing age." Physically, at least, it is from puberty to 35-40ish.

What precisely are fertile women supposed to do while they are "unemployable"? Carry on living with their parents? Claim benefits (incapacity... incapable of work on the grounds of having a functioning womb)? Marry a rich husband?

With the cost of living skyrocketing, everyone needs a job just to keep a roof over their head and food on the table - one-worker couples just can't manage any more.

If someone would step in and force the government and utility companies to stop charging such extortionate amounts for the "privilege" of staying alive, housed and healthy, then things might settle down a bit.

Katie S., Blackpool, UK

There is a very simple solution. Good communal child care on the French model. This would enable women to use their brains and training with very little time out.

Of course the best solution would be to re-engineer the species so that the lesser gender ( men in nearly every criteria) could bear children. It might even teach most men that the burden is heavier than they ever imagined, a much needed lesson in humility and humanity.

Judith Kozloff, London, UK

How exactly do you propose that society encourage women to become mothers if we are not willing to properly support married / defacto couples, or to allow proper maternity support? Yes it is difficult for businesses to manage around maternity leave, but it also difficult to replace people who leave, to deal with incompetent staff members when it seems impossible to fire anyone, and indeed to pay for state pensions when you have a retired population growing faster than

Jon Hatswell, Woking, UK

Minette appears to hang ups with woman and pregnancy. Life is hard enough for women without her making it any more difficult.. It was a woman that brought Minette into the world and I wonder how she'd have felt if someone like Minette wrote unpleanat articles about her pregnancy. At the end of the day thsi world isn't perfect and surely there are more problematic things to write about than being rude about womans rights and pregancy.

Simon, Cambridge,

unbelievable... just let men have babies then, see what a drama they'd make of it..

dee, london,

Why does so many think the employer should pay for people to have children? Surely the govenrment or parents should pay? How does it become the employers responsibility?

Some of the views on here show how greedy and selfish some (not all), women can be.

And I am a woman and a mother!

Grace Walker, Manchester, UK

In the US, the employers will not pay for maternity leave or guarantee the position upon return. It is a profit-oriented immigrant society in which the jobs are easily replaced. Just look at their health care and pension plan disasters. The UK is much more human to new parents and the new-borns.

Linda, New York, USA

If the child is on infant forumla from day one, then father and mother each having 2.5 days of work per week may work. Or the employer should pay for day care from day one.

Elaine, Boston, USA

Businesses have long been required to do certain things that are not entirely in their best interests, and that potentially harm profit and productivity: abide by legislation that made child labour illegal; protect a worker's right to belong to a union; abide by minimum wage legislation; abide by legislation to do with working hours and working conditions; ensure equal opportunities for disabled job applicants and ensure disabled access in the workplace... Maternity leave belongs in this list too - expensive but undoubtedly necessary

Very sad and embarrassing to see how many comments here suggest women have no place at work, and that however well qualified and able, women of child-bearing age shouldn't be employed

GB talks about being a "liberal" society and speaks with dismay about women's rights issues in Afghanistan and other countries. Hypocritical surely to defend a woman's right to education and equal opportunity there, when people are questioning a woman's right to work here

VJL, Durham,

Can anyone explain that, whenever the Natasha pregnancy story is discussed, all the talk is about the inconvenience of the woman (how dare she!) to take time off work.
Now, what are the reasons for women taking time off? Because they are expected to look after the baby. What about the dad? Why not let men and women have equal rights when it comes to maternity/paternity leave then we would avoid the sexist arguments about women getting pregnant.

Felicity Gordon, London,

I find this article disturbing. Not all women have the luxury of being able to 'plan' when they have a family. I decided to put off my childbearing to get my career established and have found to my peril that I now may never be able to have children of my own. I am having to pay for private ivf treatment but this has already failed twice.
I agree there has to be a line drawn somewhere in relation to all of this but planning something like this just isn't possible all the time. I am left to wonder do I now have to put my career on hold just 'in case' I have the good fortune to have a child?
Surely this lady can see that women have no choice in this matter.

Kathryn , Bury, England

Never employ a wonem of child bearing age unlesss you have to

Charles Daniels, Lady Lake , Florida

Seeing as the majority of men in this country do not earn enough to support their family, there is only one alternative and that is that the woman has to work in order to keep her family afloat.

If men could be men and earn enough money to pay the mortgage, put food on the table, pay for holiday's, pay for clothes, and basically support their women and children properly whilst not abusing thee woman and making her feel guilty and dependent , then i'm sure women wouldn't mind being women and staying at home raising the children and being homemaker.

We cannot go back 60 years when men earned enough to keep their families, so men, on this forum at least, had just better get used to women making 'demands' whilst they are pregnant carrying your children and creating the future generation of worker!

kim, london,

Maybe the writer should stop and think for a second. Six weeks pregnant means it 4 weeks had lapsed since conception. Most jobs have some sort of notice period when leaving and typically you don't get the interview on the Monday and start on the Tuesday for a job such as this. She probably found out she was pregnant within a week or so of taking up the new job when all the promotion stuff was well under way. At that point she was committed to the job and couldn't just choose to remain in her old role. What would you have her do?

So she'll take a few months off to give birth and look after her new born. So what? There is discrimination law in Britain and although its not universally acknowledged, the employment tribunals are full of women whose employers were happy to have them young and career driven and less plased to find them with family responsibilities. For most women, even today having a baby is a career wrecking decision.

Carol Southgate, Split, Croatia

The phrase "women of childbearing age" bothers me. I am a woman of childbearing age - 31 - but I was sterilised at 24 because I don't want children. Obviously I cannot put this fact on my CV as it's probably legally dubious for my employers to know it, but I am really quite terrified of being subject to "maternal profiling" because of my age.

I work in a pressurised, male-dominated field (software engineering) and I want to work hard and to succeed. I don't want to be held back by employers who think I might have children. But how can I let them know?

Not every woman of childbearing age wants children.

Laura Porter, London,

Don't you think that anybody applying for a job has the moral obligation to tell the prospective employer about anything which may affect their ability to fulfill their part of the contract, ie to work and carry out their duties, effectively? I am sure that if a prospective employer was to withhold information pertaining to the job requirements, ie, hours or duties, there would be an outcry. There are such things as moral responsibilities, even in this day and age.

Peter, Brixham, Devon

It's a pity that women need maternity pay while they're off having children (let's face it, there's no other way of having kids except for us women to do it) - but the case simply is that the vast majority of households cannot exist on one income. There's no alternative. What are we supposed to do? Not have children?

Joanne, Notts,

When my wife discovered that she was pregnant two days before starting a new job, she went straight to the HR department and told them to find someone else because it would be unfair on her prospective employer. That was thirty years ago. In this modern day of greed and let's palm the children off to some nanny so I, a woman, can practice my legal right and abandon my child’s right to a mother, it does not surprise me that Natasha Kaplinsky has deceived her new employer. What would surprise is another offer of any job again. I wouldn't touch her with a bargepole.

Bernard Lawson, London SW1, England

Just out of uni & married, i was interviewing for job i would have loved. i had had the interview, they called me up to offer me the job, & before they could i told them i was pregnant. i was only 6 weeks - wasn't telling anyone else yet obvioulsy - but it felt only fair to let them know this. Later i told as friend, who, having spent more years wokring than me, told me it was illegal for them to withdraw a job offer b/c of my pregnancy. but i disagreed with her then, and agree with you now. it was my responsiblity to tell them before they were 'forced' to hire me & pay for me to be on maternity leave. & more women should act responsiblity in letting employers know about pregnancy - or posible pregnancy - before job offers are made.

Amanda, london,

All these people suggesting that businesses recoup their investment to women are talking rubbish.

Women in the workforce are a big drain on resources.

However, society needs children, so I think we just all have to accept that women cost a load of money because they're
a. weak.
b. mediocre.
c. gossipping,
d. hard work avoiding,
e. jobsworths....

but the alternative is that they all sit at home costing more money, so is it better that a woman pays for 20% of her keep or none of it?

I prefer the 20% myself.

Charles, London,

This is just another example of the idiotic problems the politically Correct Western World has created for itself. It goes along with the other self created problems, including low birth rate, the allowance of homosexuality, the non discipline of youngsters but parent/ teacher punishment if discipline given, allowing our countries to be deluged with foreigners, freely allowing terrorists to live amongst us etc etc etc. No wonder China and India are starting to wipe the floor with us brainless idiots. After all, generally speaking the Western World governments actively encourage the survival of the weakest, most irritateing, most crippled, most unadaptable and the most load mouthed.

James Bradley, South Petherton, Somerset

Go right ahead and blame Mother Nature then.

Why does the old Patriarchal system want total control over women and their wombs.?

We are evolving.

Why base everything on £££££££- which in truth is just paper- so plenty for ALL of us to have the same lifestyle- if we work it out.

Without children, there is no future workforce.

Catherine Mills., London, UK

There is no doubt that supporting pregnant women does entail a cost to businesses, but it is something that needs to be taken account of when evaluating a business model. In effect there is no difference between introducing legislation of this kind and say, increasing the tax burden on bussinesses; it creates an inflationary pressure on the economy. Society demands equal rights, and as a country we will pay for them.

Daniel, Birmingham, UK

Such sexism is illegal for a reason. ANY woman is perfectly entitled to maternity leave at ANY time - the arguments to the contrary are male social constructs. This is the 21st century.

I have read that Natasha herself joined the BBC 6 o'clock news as maternity cover for Sophie Raworth, before becoming first choice, and presented "Strictly" in 2004 as maternity cover for Tess Daly. (As an afterthought: I'm sure the C5 News honchos are wetting their nappies over all this free publicity. Who, exactly, uses that organ as the news source of choice?)

Mike L, Chippenham, Wilts

Matri- Genocide at its best.

First the old Patriarchal system killed off the Virgin.

Then the Witch/Crone/Wise woman.

Now the Mother aspect of humanity.

That is the Loving Nurturing aspect of each of US.

Well done, that is self destruction for those awake enough to see it.

Catherine Mills., London, UK

Men have accepted pregnancy as part business, it appears women are having more problems coming to terms with it. Men have accepted that business must comply with the law and personal and moral considerations must stay out of the workplace. As the owner of an engineering company I consider the legislation relating to sex, race and disability is very clear and has helped us when making decisions where in the world to locate parts of our manufacturing operation. Companies such Peninsular are also a great help in making our obligations as employers very clear.

Demaris, Dudley,

So one minute we compaining about the lack of women in the boardroom and senior positions, and the next minute complaining about the perils of hiring women of childbearing age because of the rights they must be afforded.

Society can't have it both ways- in order for women to have the same opportunties as men to progress in their career and balance the outrageous shortage of women in senior roles, they must be afforded such 'priviledges'; which might be to the detriment of the employer in the short-term- but surely in the long term if these well qualified women are able to stay in industry, this reaps its own rewards for employers and business.

H Jackson, Manchester,

As a single, childless 40-something woman on contract to cover maternity leave, and doing a job I love, I have to admit to mixed feelings here. Obviously, I would not have had this chance did maternity cover not exist. However, I have a colleague who, having been on contract, was made permanent, and within a matter of weeks announced she was pregnant. And Minette absolutely hits the nail on the head when she says we cannot discuss it - it's an absolute no-no. I think the principle behind maternity leave/cover is a good one, but it does need to be discussed, in part because it DOES discriminate against others, but there are certain groups you cannot criticise, and new mums are one of them. I suspect that the whole way the workplace operates needs to change in order to properly accommodate all styles of working, but to achieve that we need to be able to discuss honestly and openly everything that affects it, without any hysterical shouts of discrimination.

Mary, Dublin, Ireland

Is it any suprise that the British airways T5
mess precisely coincides with the easter school term.
Uk businesses are paying a very high price having been forced to pander to the lifechoice of parents.

wayne, huntingdon, cambridgeshire

I am a single,chidless pensioner(who has taught well over 1000 children(mostly lovely)in my time.)I remember(back in the seventies) a young,married interviewee for a teaching post getting very cross indeed when asked by a (male) member of the panel if she would be starting a family at some point.Personally I felt it was a perfectly valid question.(Altho' maybe he should have more tactfully asked her if she intended to stay in post for some time.) After all,there is huge disruption to a school if staff don't stay long.I still think it was o.k.

H.D, WsM, UK

If employers are so chary of employing women of child-bearing age, then why not opt for selecting women who have either completed their families or are beyond child-bearing in any case?

There is a plethora of older women - often far better-educated (being both literate and numerate) than their younger 'sisters' - but whose age automatically disbars them from almost any job.

In my 50s, I've spent a fruitless 4 years trying to get back into work post-redundancy. I've even re-trained (twice), which my existing qualifications should have rendered unecessary.

Yes, we need our bright young graduates to have children. But why leave the equally bright, older graduate woman on the scrapheap in order to do so?

PMD, England,

minette...you hit the nail fairly and squarely on the head...I run a small business and the prospect of recruiting a kaplinsky do-alike terrifies me. The costs would severely hurt my business. The responses to your article, in the main, completely miss the point, which is that what is needed is fairness to employers as well as employees. the IR pendulum has swung too far! Why can't we ask a woman's plans for children at interview? We need to plan our business!

phil, york, england

First of all congratulations and best wishes to Natasha Kaplinsky on her happy news. Now a question. Why did C5 hire her in the first place? Was it not because she is an attractive woman? Isn't that sexist?

I would have no sympathy for an organisation that wants the cute attractive side of a woman but not the biological reality. So I'm glad C5 are not complaining.

I have had male co-workers who have missed a lot of time over sports injuries. But i have never heard it suggested that anyone should answer for their rock-climbing or rugby plans at an interview.

Henry Potts, Cork, Ireland

MM does raise a valid point. Government legislation brings on these expenses to employers. If it is Government policy to raise the birth rate (a la Russia), then the Government should bear the costs not employers.

Rob, Kenya,

Bravo, I totally agree with you. I am a woman scientist who from time to time interviews more junior scientists for fixed-term contracts and I always hesitate when faced with this issue. There are a small minority who mess it up for everyone else by exploiting the system as much as they can and for those of us who don't, it creates a perception that we are all the same. I would totally support employers being able to ask prospective employees what their plans are. We need to know whether they can do the job and what sort of people they are.

maria, london,

At least Natasha can pay for her nipper. 12-14 yr old mums demand we all pay to raise their 'binge night' babies.

That's the liberal nannty state we all love, and keep voting for.

Betty Fowler, Bristol, 8,

Exploit? If women don't have children I would say within about 50 or so years Britain's exploited businesses will have a hard time finding any staff whatsoever.

As for what is exploitation, I don't see how supporting a pregnant woman and giving her paid time during maternity is exploitation. Society needs to support mothers, it's a way in the long term to support higher birthrates and Britain.

JC, Milano, Italy

I was aware of the illegality of asking a prospective female employee about her present, and planned family situation, but was unaware of the freedom of the Arts Council to ask grant applicants about their "sexuality". Why am I not at all surprised? I guess because I have become so desentisised to the priorities of the Westminster Wierdos we continuously produce.

John Lee, Cheshire, England

Heresy! Any impact of any gender difference on women is, by definition, unfairly discriminatory, unless it is to their advantage, in which case it is discriminatory to discuss it.

Good luck - expect a lot of hysterical, venomous and ill-reasoned responses. And watch out - look what happened to Larry Summers of Harvard when he dared speak a truth on this subject.

Nick, Rotherham, UK

You haven't taken into account that she may have had problems conceiving in the past as well as possible miscarriage pre 12 weeks. It seems to me that she told her employers at the earliest possible time once the pregnancy had become likely to reach term. In light of the rise in problems with infertility in the UK, it doesn't matter what your plans or intentions of family life and career may be, it just may not happen. Why should such an unknown factor be allowed to potentially jeopardise the careers of women of child bearing age.

Lou Bashall, Bristol, uk