When Five News’s hot catch Natasha Kaplinskyannounced last week that she was three months pregnant six weeks into her new job as Britain’s highest-paid newsreader, most women cheered. A £1m-a-year contract and a baby – it was the equivalent of Nicolas Sarkozy landing the French presidency and Carla Bruni.

Yet no sooner had the announcement come than anonymous sources were telling newspapers that Kaplinsky’s bosses, while publicly “delighted”, were privately “hopping mad”.

The 35-year-old is key to the channel’s strategy to expand its audience share. She has already produced a 72% increase in viewing figures for the evening news and will be difficult to replace while she is on maternity leave. The subtext was: how could she sign such a big deal and then pop off to have a baby so soon?

Kaplinsky said she was open with her bosses about her intention to start a family. Not everybody is. The BBC’s new economics editor, Stephanie Flan-ders, has admitted she didn’t tell her employers she was five months pregnant until she had accepted the job.

“I do feel bad about it and, yes, it would have been much better for me if Evan Davis [her predecessor] had stepped down in another two years,” she said. “What do you do? Rule yourself out of a job you know you will be good at?”

These high-flyers are the public face of a private quandary for many women: do you tell a prospective employer you are expecting a baby or intending to get pregnant? And if you decide not to, what are the con-sequences? THE legal situation is simple. It is illegal to ask a job candidate whether they have or are expecting children. Or, once they are employed, to discriminate against them because they do.

In America, by contrast, employers in 28 states are entitled to ask questions about an applicant’s marital status, plans for a family and childcare arrangements.

The CBI, which represents Britain’s employers, approves of the status quo. “We certainly don’t suggest women tell prospective employers,” said Susan Anderson, its director of human resources policy. “Why would you?” A survey last year by the Equality and Human Rights Commission makes clear why women are sometimes wary of asserting their rights.

It found 70% of recruitment agencies had been asked to avoid hiring women who were pregnant or likely to get pregnant. A survey in 2004 found eight out of 10 human resources managers would “think twice” before hiring a newlywed woman in her twenties.

Not every boss tells his newly pregnant employee she will be “useless” and “never the same again”, as happened to Louise Manning, a 39-year-old sales manager for a supplier of security systems, who earlier this year won a case for sex discrimination at an employment tribunal.

However, in 2005 the equality commission estimated 30,000 women lose their jobs each year because of maternity-related problems. Only 3% take the employer to a tribunal. Countless others are demoted while on maternity leave.

The horror stories are legion. Lisa, who held a senior position in a publishing firm for two years, said even announcing she was engaged caused problems. “I’d got married soon after I was hired and I remember my boss blanching at the news,” she said.

She was made redundant a few months after requesting flexible working on her return from maternity leave. “I wanted to do four days and that put their backs up. I felt I had been punished.”

Imogen, director of a FTSE 100 company, was passed over for promotion after she had her second child. When she became pregnant a third time, and told her boss at 10 weeks, he said: “If you don’t resign, we’ll find a way to make you redundant.”

She recalled: “It’s shattering. My advice now would be: keep it quiet for as long as you physically can.” Nondisclosure, however, has its problems. The law may not require you to say anything, but what about your conscience?

Last week a debate on Times-Online’s Alpha Mummy blog sparked by the Kaplinsky story showed how contentious is the subject. Able to speak anonymously, a number of men revealed strident opinions.

“To go for a job interview and get the job knowing you are pregnant is nothing short of deception,” said “James”.

“Keith” said: “Women should have to sign a contract promising not to get pregnant for X amount of time when they start a job.”

Some women have sympathy with their arguments. “Giving the impression that we’re a risky option because we might pop off any minute to procreate is completely irresponsible and unhelpful,” said Liz Fraser, author of The Yummy Mummy’s Family Handbook.

She believes the problem lies in the “deceit” of not telling. “[Employers] don’t want someone who’s lied through their teeth from day one,” she said.

“If you tarnish your reputation once, it can come back to haunt you – and other women. Nowadays we want to have our cake and eat it. If he can’t sack me for being pregnant, why am I allowed not to tell him?”

Others point out that what works for celebrity newsreaders might not work in more humble jobs.

“Natasha Kaplinsky is so high profile that this situation has worked for her,” said Denise Tyler, who runs the independent advice network Mother at Work. “She was lucky to be able to be upfront about her plans to have a family – not everyone is in that situation.

“If you’re not honest, the trust between you and your employer is ruined. At an already stressful time when you’re pregnant, do you really want to go into an atmosphere of resentment?”

Few women, however, manage to schedule the births of their children as easily as their business meetings; many try for years to get pregnant and cannot put their careers on hold in the meantime. Even with the best employer, there may be reasons not to disclose.

Sue had interviews for two jobs in the environmental sector when she was more than 16 weeks pregnant. She did not mention it because she had been told there was a risk of Down’s syndrome and she was due a test at 20 weeks.

“We had decided we wouldn’t keep the baby if that was the case,” she said. “Mentally, I’d told myself I wasn’t pregnant. I wasn’t showing.” The test was negative. Then both organisations offered her jobs. “I went through a lot of turmoil before making the calls saying I was pregnant,” she said.

Both upheld their offers and the company she joined gave her full benefits.

Many employers privately admit to problems with dealing with maternity leave. Larger companies usually have the numbers to cover the absence. For small businesses, however, losing a key employee for up to a year from a small team can be highly problematic. “I’ve run small businesses where it really is a struggle when someone goes on maternity leave,” said Suzanne Franks, author of Having None of It, which examined how best to harmonise the workplace and family life.

“It’s a major headache, a financial and managerial burden. Small businesses should have more help from government.”

The concerns are only multiplying with changes to the rules on maternity leave. Its extension to a year from last April has had some unintended consequences.

“I’m dreading telling my boss I’m pregnant,” said one woman on the popular parenting website Babycentre last week. “Especially as I’m still on maternity leave with baby No 1 . . .”

WITH politicians falling over themselves to announce more family-friendly policies, the debates on these issues will draw in more people.

When additional parental leave comes into effect (from 2010 at the earliest), employers will have to take into account that male staff could also be off work for several months after the birth of a child.

Already, as one mother points out, as modern fathers get more involved with day-to-day childrearing, employers should be considering its effect on them as much as on mothers.

“If you hire a [father] in his thirties, he will be functioning on considerably less than 100% for the first six months if he’s helping with night feeds,” she said. “People having children is not solely a ‘women’s problem’.”

Editor's choice

• The 100 Best Films of the Decade
• 70 facts you didn't know about Marvel
• The 50 Biggest Movies Of 2010