Magritte at Tate Liverpool: Secrets and surrealism - video...

As a major new retrospective opens, Adrian Searle investigates The Secret Player – a work as wilfully surreal as anything Magritte painted, and yet which contains buried clues to the artist's own life...

http://www.guardian.co.uk/culture/video/2011/jun/22/magritte-tate-liverpool-secrets-surrealism-video

Grace Woodward: 'Pure fashion is about breaking the rules'....

The top stylist talks about turning 'normal people' into pop stars for The X Factor, 'white bread' fashion for the masses, and why glamour magazines are not to blame for body dysmorphia.

Perhaps the biggest misconception of people who work in the fashion industry is that they are fashion. When uber-stylist Grace Woodward, 33, an excitable flap of huge eyelashes and chocolate-coloured eyes, lets me into her top-floor Islington flat, she makes no bones about being barefoot and dressed solely in a Katharine Hamnett T-shirt, holding a box of fried chicken. It's not what you'd expect from the woman named stylist of the year by the British Fashion Council.

Six years after leaving her role as head of press at lingerie label Agent Provocateur, Woodward has styled everyone from Florence Welch to Rod Stewart and Green Day, working with photographers such as Perou, David Bailey and Rankin. She was responsible for giving last year's X Factor contestants their pop star "looks", and works alongside Elle Macpherson as a judge on Britain & Ireland's Next Top Model. Not bad for a Doc Marten-wearing grunge kid who grew up in a council flat in a London suburb.

Now about to front her own TV show, Chick Fix, which sees her doling out lifestyle advice to women with issues, is she setting herself up to steal Gok Wan's crown? No, the show is "nothing like Gok Wan's, no offence Gok". In fact, it's less fashion-oriented than you'd expect, instead promising to be an antidote to "faux girl power". Indeed, it seems the only fashion giveaway is the huge, thick-rimmed pair of Retro Super Future glasses Grace is known for wearing. It's not her fault, she insists, that she can't see terribly well…

You were responsible for injecting high-fashion into last year's X Factor. How did you get involved?

Simon [Cowell] is a very good barometer for the British public. But he's also a businessman and is acutely aware that when the finalists come out into the world they haven't yet become products. So last year he started involving people like me who work in the industry to help turn the contestants into pop stars.

Some of the outfits had lukewarm receptions. Was your work lost on the public?

You're talking about Katie Waissel and the helmet? Ha. With Katie we wanted to set a bar. That hat had been shot in loads of magazines but it didn't go down well on TV. Why? Here's my halfpenny's worth: people are afraid of things they haven't seen before. Outside of the creativity industry, anything new is threatening. My styling took a while to settle with the public, but it did eventually.

Whose style do you admire more: Cheryl or Dannii?

The last series showed the two of them at their pinnacle, but I hugely dislike comparing different women of different ages. People want me to say I'd love to style Cheryl, but that's not what I do. I create images and fantasies. Cheryl has her own stylist. In terms of the contestants, Katie Waissel was definitely the most game and the most misunderstood. She is showbiz.

Are you going back this year?

I have no idea. Last year I was given two weeks' notice. X Factor was a nightmare. But an amazing nightmare. You are working with normal people, yet I've never heard so many people say to me, "Erm, this dress isn't me." I just say: "You want to look like a pop star? Listen to me."

Are you very experienced at styling pop stars then?

I did Florence Welch's first image overhaul and press shots. I also did La Roux, but my favourite artist was Fever Ray because, unlike other women, she doesn't rely on her sexuality. But I guess all of them are freakish. Talented but freakish. In a good way.

For those not in the know, what exactly does a stylist do?

To me, styling is about making fantasies. It's only recently that people have understood that it's not about pairing shoes with handbags – rather it's like painting, using texture, cultural references like Queen Elizabeth I, and movement, not just clothes. X Factor aside, I've never styled real people. I probably wouldn't know how. Real life doesn't get my creative juices flowing.

Were you obsessed with fashion as a child?

Growing up very unhappily in a council flat for my formative years, I am – according to Penny Martin, [editor of biannual style magazine The Gentlewoman] – "inspired by the bourgeois". My parents were both too busy navel-gazing to notice. My dad once said something glib about me being a professional shopper, so I think we stopped talking about it after that.

Have you always lusted after beautiful clothes?

I've always been a dresser- upper with a penchant for the theatrical. I wore my mum's shoes as a toddler. I'm a child of the 1980s, so brands matter to me. I suppose it all started with a pair of Doc Martens. When I studied at the London College of Fashion, I was often faced with the dilemma of buying food or saving up for that Vivienne Westwood T-shirt. So I'd eat baked beans for a week and get the T-shirt.

So how do you decide what to wear each morning?

I'm a style tart. Dressing is a form of self-expression so I dress how I'm feeling. Today I'm wearing a T-shirt, mainly for practical reasons.

Have you always wanted to be a TV personality?

My sixth form college was theatre-based so I've always had performance in me. I once, embarrassingly, did an opening casting to be a presenter on The Big Breakfast. It was during the Kelly Brook era. Luckily I didn't get it. It's only now that I have the confidence to do TV.

Are you good at it?

The hardest thing is to come across well while also imparting knowledge about my side of the industry. I'm usually in creative control of everything I do, but when you go into a public arena like X Factor you can lose creative control of what goes on screen. You have to be wary about compromise.

You're also a familiar face on Britain's Next Top Model. Do you feel responsible for the young, inexperienced models on the show?

Yes. Some of the psychological challenges seem ridiculous but they are a metaphor for what will happen in the industry. They need to know it's not glamorous and it's not always fun. A lot of the models try to be charismatic to win us round. We're just thinking: do you look good in a photograph? You quickly see the arch-manoeuvrers.

You mentioned Queen Elizabeth I. What else inspires you?

My mother liked the Pre-Raphaelites and had a framed print of Millais's Ophelia, so women in art are always inspirations to me. Ultimately, when creating any image you are trying to make it iconic .

Fashion is often perceived as a lowbrow, fluffy subject. Does that annoy you?

Fashion is art, and there are designers who are geniuses. It's highbrow. Are you saying Hussein Chalayan isn't a genius? I have felt demeaned when saying I work in fashion but that's only because people don't understand what I do. They confuse styling and fashion with the high street.

So what is the difference?

Fashion, in its purest sense, is about breaking rules. High street is a watered-down interpretation. I am a stylist, and style is neither fashion nor high street. Stylish people tend to shop the least because they aren't swayed by what's on-trend or in-store.

You're not a fan of Primark then?

I appreciate the high street but "fashion" for the masses is everywhere, like processed white bread. Everyone eats it.

The fashion industry is often accused of being run by interns. Do you agree with this culture of unpaid work?

I blame universities. They are taking 60-plus students on their fashion courses when there just aren't enough jobs out there. It's irresponsible because they end up interning for no payback. Why is there no accredited apprenticeship scheme with fashion houses, where designers get paid to impart a trade that makes you viable? I have thought about going to David Cameron about it. It's giving fashion a bad name.

You seem passionate about the ethics of the industry – what's your take on the body image debate? Do you resent fashion getting the blame?

Fashion magazines shouldn't have to bear the weight of the responsibility. It's a lazy observation, cultivated by the media. Like I said, we are trying to create a fantasy, not tell people how to look. I know it sounds like a flimsy argument but I don't think you can nanny people. It's a psychological issue. It's not fashion's fault.

So the rise of curvy women in fashion, as seen on the last cover of Vogue Italia and among models like Crystal Renn , is a positive thing?

The three women on the cover of Vogue Italia are tall and beautiful. That's a massive reason they're on the cover. Also, Crystal Renn isn't just a fat girl who made it. She's extraordinary as a person. I was once asked to comment on Christina Hendricks [size 14 star of Mad Men]. It's great that we have diversity but we have to be careful not to excuse a bad diet and no exercise for curvy. Christina is healthy but we also have an obesity crisis in the country. Where is the middle ground?

Chick Fix is about helping women cope with lifestyle problems such as infidelity or workplace competitiveness. Do you think women are more competitive than men?

No, but competition between women in fashion is very fierce. That was one of the reasons I left – I knew I wasn't strong enough. I had a job I used to leave every night in tears because of a female editor.
Britain & Ireland's Next Top Model starts on 4 July, and Chick Fix on 12 July, both at 9pm on Sky Living

http://www.guardian.co.uk/lifeandstyle/2011/jun/26/grace-woodward-fashion-stylist-interview

Bank chief warns of wave of home repossessions if rates rise....

UKAR chief presiding over £80bn of bailed-out mortgages says 'tough love' would be fairer on those struggling with payments.

Britain is facing a tsunami of house repossessions as soon as interest rates start to rise, one of the country's leading bankers has warned.

Richard Banks, the chief executive of UK Asset Resolution (UKAR), the body that runs the £80bn of mortgages bailed out by the taxpayer during the banking crisis, also said in an interview with the Guardian that the Labour government's pleas at the start of the crisis for lenders to keep families in their homes was forcing some homeowners further into debt.

In a warning that the industry may have been too lenient with some of its customers, he said he believed a policy of "tough love" would be fairer to people facing long-term difficulty in keeping up payments on loans taken out when house prices were at their peak and personal incomes on the rise.

His warning came the day after the international bank regulator said the Bank of England, which has kept rates at 0.5% for more than two years, would have to raise rates shortly to curb inflation.
The Bank of International Settlements said the policy of the Bank of England, whose rate-setting committee is split over whether or not to increase borrowing costs, was "unsustainable".

     
With 750,000 customers, UK Asset Resolution, set up to run the nationalised mortgages of Bradford & Bingley and parts of Northern Rock, is the country's fifth largest mortgage lender. But 23,000 of those mortgage holders are more than six months behind with payments and Banks admitted the projections for the number of people falling behind on payments could get "scary" if lenders did nothing to prepare for higher rates.

"You can see if you don't do something about it, you can see a tsunami," he said. "If you don't get into the hills you could get drowned by this. If you don't manage this properly it could get very messy."

He regards it is an industry-wide problem, albeit one that might be concentrated at UKAR as its customers include buy-to-let landlords and so-called self-certified borrowers – those without salaried income. UKAR, through three calls centres in Crossflatts, West Yorkshire, Gosforth, Newcastle, and Doxford, Sunderland, has begun cold-calling customers it believes are at risk of falling behind on payments in an attempt to keep their mortgage payments on schedule.

The bank is also trying to tackle customers behind with payments for six months or more and at risk of repossession.

His concern about a surge in repossessions is partly the result of moves by the industry early in the 2008 crisis to grant so-called forbearance to help customers stay in homes by, for example, reducing monthly interest payments. "We as an industry, as a kneejerk reaction in the emergence of the crisis, and because the government asked us to be forbearing to customers in the hope it would all go away, we have been too lenient with some customers.

"It's a tough love approach," he said. "It's treating customers fairly, not nicely, because if you can't afford your mortgage you are only increasing your indebtedness. If we allow you to increase your indebtedness, that's not really fair to you."

This month the Council of Mortgage Lenders forecast a rise in repossessions from 40,000 this year to 45,000 next. This figure would still remain well below the 75,500 peak of 1991. The remarks by Banks follow a warning last week from the new regulator set up to spot financial risks in the system – the Financial Policy Committee (FPC) inside the Bank of England – that warned banks may be providing a "misleading picture of their financial health" if they were not making big enough provisions for borrowers in difficulty.

Forbearance has been brought into play in up to 12% of mortgages, the FPC said.

It also noted that the most "vulnerable" households were concentrated in a few banks. It did not scrutinise UKAR but noted that the two other bailed-out banks, Lloyds Banking Group and Royal Bank of Scotland, had the largest exposure to customers whose mortgages were bigger than their value of their homes.

Last month, the Financial Services Authority issued a guide to handling forbearance in which it warned:

 "Arrears and forbearance support provided with due care by firms has a beneficial impact for both the firm and the customer … However, where such support is provided without due care or any knowledge or understanding of the impacts, it has potentially adverse implications for the customer, for the firm's understanding of the risks inherent within its lending book, and in turn for the regulators and the market."

         
http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2011/jun/27/house-repossessions-wave-interest-rates-rise                   

Divorcees offered insurance against ex-spouses who stop maintenance.....

Insurance will fund legal battles against former partners who willfully default – and pay out if exes can no longer afford to.

Jenny, a mother of two young girls, has been left with legal bills of more than £9,000 after pursuing her ex-husband for maintenance payments.

After she divorced her husband of five years, Jenny (not her real name) took on the caring responsibility for their two daughters. With a consent order in place, she had no reason to think that he would fail to pay her the agreed £740 a month she needed.

"The split was amicable and I never dreamed that he would default, but he did – less than a year after we split up. He had met someone online and said he now had another family to support," she said.

"Eventually, I decided to take legal action, until he applied for a reduction the correct way. But doing so was extremely expensive and I had to use credit cards to pay the solicitor."

Jenny's experience is by no means unusual. Divorcees relying on maintenance payments from former partners often find themselves struggling financially because their ex is made redundant, becomes ill, dies or simply refuses to pay. While a consent order setting out the division of assets and payment of maintenance is legally binding, in theory meaning both parties can move on financially, it cannot guarantee that maintenance payments will be kept up.

"A consent order can only be enforced to the extent that an ex-partner has the money to pay the maintenance," says Mark Penston from BlueSky Independent Financial Advisers, a firm that specialises in mediated settlements and divorce.

"In today's economic climate we are seeing more and more problems arising from these payments grinding to a halt as a result of redundancy or other problems," he says. "Mothers with children can suffer serious financial hardship, and while they can go back to court to try to enforce the payments with further legal proceedings, this could be costly."

These problems are compounded by cuts in legal aid and proposed changes to the way the Child Support Agency (CSA) operates, leaving people with little support. The government last year announced plans to scrap legal aid for couples who want to end their marriage. Penston says life cover and sickness benefit can be arranged as part of the divorce settlement so that if an ex-spouse dies or falls ill, maintenance payments continue.

"But this doesn't satisfy all the eventualities that might occur," he says. An insurance policy, called New Start, has been developed to fill this gap. It covers shortfalls in maintenance payments following an ex-spouse being made redundant, dying, or falling ill – and it pays for legal representation to enforce payment where the ex-spouse willfully defaults on payments. It is provided through Maintenance Assist, an insurance broker authorised by the Financial Services Authority.

Henry Glasse, the managing director of Maintenance Assist, said: "Our aim is to restore financial security to recipients of maintenance and we also provide a free legal helpline for support. Quite often, for example, the husband will start a second family with another woman and the competing pressures can lead to the maintenance being cut for his first family.

"The proper course of events is for the husband to go back to the court to request a reduction in the maintenance, but often he just stops paying and waits for the ex-wife to take him back to court. With the government actively encouraging individuals to make private arrangements for child maintenance, rather than going through the CSA, we feel our service is what people will be looking for."

The policy is available to people with a legally binding consent order, and premiums are paid monthly with a choice of two packages. The standard package covers lost maintenance for a year while the gold option pays out for 24 months. But it isn't cheap – premiums start from around £16 a month covering monthly maintenance of £300 – a lot for those on the breadline.

David Allison, the chairman of Resolution, the family lawyers' association, says: "This policy has its place for some people. Maintenance payments often stop because of temporary financial difficulties or the person simply being difficult – and this would cover for the period while steps are taken to resolve this. But it can be quite expensive, and we often factor life insurance into maintenance payments so that payments would be covered if the maintenance payer dies."

However, Ginny Colman, family lawyer at Birketts, believes these policies for protecting income streams post-divorce are becoming a vital tool. "They offer certainty and peace of mind for clients during a vulnerable time, and most clients have already spent significant sums in reaching a financial settlement and they are keen to avoid further distress," she says.

Penston adds: "We have dealt with two cases with clients paying £60 and £100 a month for this policy, both covering £1,500-a-month maintenance payments – but the first policy would pay out for a year if a claim was made, while the second would pay out for two years. The claim would therefore amount to around £36,000, which is a hefty sum and makes the cost worthwhile – covering maintenance payments might be considered a necessity for some people."

The insurance can be factored into the divorce settlement. "The divorcing parties both fill in various forms during the divorce declaring their income, assets and anticipated expenditure," says Glasse.

"So the cost of maintenance insurance can be added to the list of expected outgoings such as household insurance and mortgage costs, and we can give quotations at an early stage so that the cost can be estimated. The wife will often be awarded maintenance for herself based on covering the expenditure listed."

For information on New Start contact Maintenance Assist on 01449 798163. For impartial advice on court orders for maintenance, contact Child Maintenance Options on 0800 988 0988. To contact the Child Support Agency, call 08457 133133.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/money/2011/jun/25/divorcees-offered-insurance-maintenance

Benefit cuts: single mothers are the biggest losers....

Lone Mums can expect to lose up to 8.5% of their annual income - equivalent to a month's income every year - as a result of Coalition changes to tax and benefits, says a study...

Another day, another study which shows that the effects of the cuts will impact hardest on those who are, collectively, some of the most vulnerable. Lone parents are the big losers from the Coalition's reforms to tax and benefits, and single women find themselves worse off than single men, says a new report.

How much worse off? The study, by the Fawcett Society and the Institute for Fiscal Studies, estimates that

• Single women will lose an average of just under 5% of their annual income as result of changes to the tax and welfare system by 2015
• Lone mothers can expect to lose 8.5% of their annual income by 2015, equivalent to a month's take home income every year and three times the percentage amount the average childless couple will lose

According to Anna Bird, acting chief executive of the Fawcett Society:

"The results are clear: women are bearing the brunt of cuts... Some of the least well off in our society are being forced to act as shock absorbers for the cuts, with women – in particular single mothers - faring worse."

In a sense this impact is predictable: lone parents are particularly reliant on income from benefits and tax credits, and 92% of lone parents are women. They are being hit badly because the value of benefits generally is shrinking (because of changes in the way they are uprated), while others are being reduced, frozen or withdrawn: housing benefit, child benefit, Sure Start maternity grants, and the childcare element of the working tax credit.

Interestingly, the government has argued that this kind of analysis was impossible. Last summer the Fawcett society launched a judicial review of the June 2010 emergency budget on the grounds that the chancellor had failed to take proper account of the impact of his policies on gender inequality (the challenge was subsequently dismissed). The Treasury argued in its defence that it was:

"...not possible accurately to assess the extent to which Budget measures affect women and men"

This study argues that it is, and that the government not only has a legal duty to use its own more comprehensive data to do so, but should build it into its future budget plans to ensure fairness. According to Bird:

"This puts paid to the idea that the government can't anticipate or predict the impact of its fiscal policies on different demographic groups. Had the Treasury been doing this research in the first place, single mothers might now not be facing a situation where they can't afford childcare and so can't work, and where some of the poorest women in our society are right now getting poorer."

When I spoke to the Treasury this morning they had not prepared a response (I'll update the blog if they do).
One way of escaping the benefit squeeze, of course, would be to encourage single parents into paid work. Labour developed this policy, and the Coalition has accelerated it. Lone parents whose child has reached the age of five will from October be moved from income support to job seeker's allowance, requiring them to actively search for work and accept a job if offered. Fine, except that it is increasingly hard to get work, particularly work that is flexible enough to meet the childcare needs of single parents, and childcare itself is increasing scarce and expensive.

The Fawcett society calls this the "lone parent employment challenge":

"At the same time as the coalition government introduces wide-scale welfare reform with the intention of "making work pay", they are reducing the level of support for childcare and training costs that help lone parents into work."

• Update Thursday 23 June, 5.45pm
The Treasury has now responded to the Fawcett report. I think what it is trying to say is that it disputes the conclusion that single mothers will be worse off as a result of benefit changes. Here is the comment from a
Treasury spokesman:

"Cutting the deficit and getting the economy going again is good for everyone. This has meant tough decisions, but the Government has made these in the fairest way, taking real action to benefit women in all aspects of their lives. Child Tax Credits have been increased for the poorest families and action taken at the June Budget will give around 25,000 lone parents the support needed to help them back to work. What's more, 260,000 women will be taken out of tax by the Government's increase in the Income Tax personal allowance."

"The IFS itself has acknowledged that the Treasury has published unprecedented distributional analysis since June 2010 and that the analysis in this report is incomplete, as it excludes the impact of Universal Credit. In a previous report the IFS has made clear that single women will benefit more on average from the Government's Universal Credit than single men."

http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/patrick-butler-cuts-blog/2011/jun/23/single-mums-biggest-losers-from-benefit-cuts

Live Q&A: Maternity and paternity proposals with Edward Davey.......

Government proposals on maternity and paternity leave and extended flexible working will impact on parents and employers. Put your questions to employment relations minister Ed Davey...

Flexible working hours, family friendly employment practices that allow a good work-life balance, flexible parental leave that can be shared by mothers and fathers. It sounds ideal if you are an employee, but how practical is it for employers?

The government has published proposals saying that while mothers should retain the exclusive right to 18 weeks' maternity leave, and fathers will still get two weeks of ordinary paternity leave, the remainder of the existing maternity leave should be reclassified as parental leave and be made available to either parent on an equal basis. They could take leave at the same time, take it on a part-time basis, or break the leave into two or more periods. The government is also considering extending unpaid parental leave beyond the current limit of the child's fifth birthday.

It also wants employers to extend flexible working practices to all employees who have been employed for 26 consecutive weeks, and not just for those with children under the age of 17 or disabled children under 18. And it is consulting on legislation to force employers to put equal pay for men and women into practice.


Parents have reacted with delight, but employers and those representing them have big reservations. Eve Taylor, founder of an aromatherapy and skincare business, says: "Please can someone tell me how this is to be paid for and by who – small companies cannot pay out all this money."

Employment relations minister Ed Davey will be online on Tuesday 28 June at 2.30pm to explain the proposals and answer your questions on the subject. He is very keen to hear from parents – prospective and current – and employers including those running SMEs.

To post your comments and queries, please follow the link below..

http://www.guardian.co.uk/money/blog/2011/jun/24/maternity-paternity-proposals-edward-davey

Pregnant? Wait till the boss hears....

Just days after telling her employer she was pregnant, Danniella McClain was made redundant. And the number of similar cases of sexual discrimination is rising.

Be open, honest, and unapologetic – this is the approach pregnancy manuals advise women to take when informing their employers they are going to have a baby. Most manuals also recognise that this can be one of the most stressful parts of early pregnancy.

Danniella McClain, 28, waited until she reached the 13-week milestone and had seen the foetus on a scan before telling her boss. She was anxious, but fairly confident that it would be a straightforward conversation. Within seconds it was obvious the news was unwelcome; within days she was made redundant.

After a protracted legal battle, McClain won a claim against her former employer on the grounds that he had subjected her to sex discrimination, related to her pregnancy, when he dismissed her. The case represents a rare legal success in an area of discrimination that often goes unchecked. Although news of large payouts to City executives make occasional headlines, cases involving relatively low-paid women who are either sacked or bullied into resigning are far more common, and yet go to trial far less frequently – usually because the women are unable to afford basic legal advice.

McClain's story is striking because it is such a brazen instance of an employer taking rapid action to dispense with a staff member on hearing news of her pregnancy. McClain came in to work at the London estate agents, Hogarth, where she had been employed for nine months, on a Monday morning in late September 2009, noted that the company's owner was in a good mood, and decided this was the moment to tell him her news. His response was not what she had expected.

"He said: 'Right, right . . . OK'," she recalls. "He didn't smile. He didn't say congratulations. He didn't know what to say; it was like he was in deep shock."

A few days later, concerned that nothing more had been said about arrangements for her pregnancy, she decided to put her due date and proposed departure into writing, and left an envelope on his desk. She says she was able to watch as he opened the letter, observing his actions reflected in her computer screen.

Moments later he asked if he could have a word with her. "He said: 'We are making your role redundant. I'll give you a month's notice. I'll give you your commission'," she says. He told her she didn't have to work her notice, and that was all he said. The conversation lasted less than a minute, she thinks.

"I walked out of the office and started crying. I'd gone in at 9am that day and I was out by 9.18. It was over very quickly," she says.

Since the financial crisis began, there has been a sharp rise in the number of women who have lost their jobs as a result of pregnancy, campaigners and lawyers report. There are no precise figures to illustrate their concern, but the campaigners' assessment reflects a clear increase in the numbers of people contacting lawyers and support groups to take legal advice.

Rosalind Bragg, director of the advice and campaigning group Maternity Action, says: "Before the crash, 30,000 women each year lost their jobs because of pregnancy discrimination. The situation has become much worse since the economic downturn. We see a lot of cases of pregnant women and women on maternity leave who are selected for redundancy because of their pregnancy."

The organisation has also advised a lot of women whose employers have made life unbearable since they announced their pregnancy, many of whom have subsequently resigned, Bragg says. Because of the time and costs involved in taking legal action, the majority of women do not pursue their employers, she adds. "Women on low wages find it particularly difficult to find the resources to take legal action against their employers and will receive only modest payouts if they succeed."

She points to a new willingness among some employers to complain openly about maternity rights. Alan Sugar caused outrage when he said maternity laws meant "people are entitled to have too much; everything has gone too far", and his comments were echoed more recently by Simon Murray, chairman of the commodities trading company Glencore, who said: "Pregnant ladies have nine months off. Do you think that means . . . what I'm absolutely desperate to have is young women who are about to get married in my company, and that I really need them on board because I know they're going to get pregnant and they're going to go off for nine months?"

Bragg says: "There is widespread acceptance of pregnancy discrimination amongst employers. While Alan Sugar has spoken publicly about his views, many other employers privately follow his lead. Very few women take any action over pregnancy discrimination so most employers will get away with it. A government survey found that 24% of men thought that women on maternity leave should be made redundant before anyone else."

Losing her job was devastating for McClain. She had not planned to get pregnant and had deliberated hard about going ahead as a single parent.

"It was really hard; it makes me teary to think about it," she says, trying (without success) not to cry at the memory of the weeks that followed her dismissal. "It should have been a really happy time. I can't tell you how stressed I was for the first part of my pregnancy. I was angry. I was scared. I didn't know how I was going to live. I rent – I have bills to pay. I had to get benefits, which I'd never done before. I felt really let down. I felt really alone.

"One of the major reasons I had decided to go ahead as a single mum was because I felt secure – I had a job, I could pay the rent. I really questioned myself – asking myself if I was doing the right thing." Now – she stresses – she's thrilled that she went ahead with the pregnancy, and says: "It was worth it 100 times over, obviously." But at the time losing her job made her very uncertain about her choices.

"I thought: I'm on benefits; I have no job; I didn't know how I was going to get another job. I did try, but it is hard when you are pregnant to get a new job," she says.

The case did not involve maternity payments, because McClain was not eligible for them, but focused on her employer's decision to not hold her job open for her, and addressed whether his argument that she was being let go because of unrelated company restructuring was plausible.

A colleague told the tribunal that McClain's boss, Alun Dufoo, had taken her aside on the day that he had heard the news. "Alun told me that he intended to let Danniella go as he did not see how she could continue to do her job . . . Alun has not hid the fact that he thinks Danniella is making a bad choice in regards to her pregnancy," the court transcript states.

The day after she was told she was being made redundant, McClain heard from a colleague that her boss had offered her job to someone else in the office.

Dufoo argued that there were issues with McClain's competence and also that the redundancy was related to the financial downturn, but the tribunal found for her.

Camilla Palmer, a specialist in pregnancy discrimination with solicitors Leigh Day, who represented McClain, says: "There was absolutely no issue with the job she was doing. The timing was highly suspicious."
She says she has seen a huge increase in the numbers of women contacting her in the wake of the recession, adding: "We're not talking about whole departments being made redundant, but the one person out of 10 employees who is pregnant finding that they are the only person to be made redundant."

She says that employers often make stereotypical assumptions about pregnant women - that they will only come back part-time, that they will be less committed to the job, that they will no longer be willing to be at the employer's beck and call - and decide that it is inconvenient to continue employing a pregnant woman. Sacking someone when they are pregnant "can destroy enjoyment of pregnancy and cause huge stress and high blood pressure", she says.

"I would add that, without strong protection for pregnant women and new mothers – which is properly enforced — we will never achieve gender equality."

The company went into liquidation during the course of the case, but McClain's lawyers were successful in bringing an individual case of discriminatory dismissal against Dufoo, who is now working with estate agents Hogarths Estates, at the same address in Earl's Court.

McClain was awarded £21,925.20 in recognition of loss of earnings and injury to feelings, but has not yet received the money from Dufoo. Contacted by telephone, he said the money had not been paid because his lawyers were preparing to appeal.

"Even when a woman gets a judgment in her favour, she can still face a struggle to get the payout. The cuts to Legal Aid and advice services will make it harder for women to solve these problems," Bragg says, calling on the government to do more to raise awareness about the rights of pregnant women and new mothers at work. "It is not acceptable for the government to sit back and leave it to individual women to confront their employers. The problem is not going away."

McClain says she is thrilled to have won the case, but is still looking for another job – her search hampered by the ripple effects (practical and also in terms of self-confidence) of losing her job at such a sensitive time.
"I am relieved and happy that the court process is over and that justice was served, but it is incredibly difficult now, just trying to find new work," she says.

• For advice on pregnancy rights, visit Working Families or Maternity Action

http://www.guardian.co.uk/lifeandstyle/2011/jun/23/pregnant-wait-till-boss-hears