³ÉÈË¿ìÊÖ

Oh baby.

She's often controversial - and always out-spoken. So it's hardly a surprise that our guest on Monday, Sylvia Tidy-Harris, caught your attention.

She's a former airline stewardess who took the business version of a mid-air jump - without the parachute. She left her job in the sunny world of holidays and swapped it for the squally seas of enterprise.

For her, the risk paid off. Nowadays she runs a speaking agency that spans three continents.

And like many people who run their own businesses, she's no fan of red tape.

Her pet hate is the batch of regulations that gives new mothers and fathers the right to paid time off work to look after their children.

She sees it as a huge inconvenience and a massive cost. In her view, she loses talented people for a prolonged period and has the hassle of replacing them with someone who may be less skilled.

So to avoid it, she has a contentious solution. She will not hire young women. To avoid any potential prosecution for discrimination, she does not advertise any job vacancies at her company.

This will horrify people who have campaigned over many years for greater rights for parents. To them, work life has to co-exist with family life. If anything, the duty of raising the next generation is much more important than corporate survival. The expense of these measures is just the cost of doing business - a cost that society demands.

Sylvia disputes this, and says many other entrepreneurs agree with her - but dare not say so in public. She claims it's a secret, unspoken truth of small business.

And many of you concur.

"How refreshing to hear someone talking common sense," emailed Rob. "The only people who end up paying for legislationÌýlike (this) are the public."

"Ms Harris is absolutely and totally correct," wrote Peter. "These maternity and paternity laws are a farce. No business should have to bear the cost. An employer should be allowed to employ who they want."

John said, "Sylvia's comments on maternity leave and age discrimination were spot on. Well done for airing her views."

But not everyone agreed.

(As I said, she's controversial.)

"This feature gave a very negative message to the business community," wrote Melanie. "Her idea of not recruiting women who may have children is totally unsavoury."

Benn in Hinkley noted, "that young lady needs to enter the real world."

You'll have your own views on this - and feel free to add them in the comments.

I was struck by something else she said. She criticised companies that replaced older workers, accusing them of throwing away skills and experience.

But isn't that what she's doing with younger workers? Isn't she - with her refusal to hire young women - cutting herself off from a vast pool of talent? As well as reducing the country's economic capacity, by removing people who could be productive from the workforce?

And - for all her dislike of red tape - doesn't the behaviour of some companies towards older workers prove the need for regulation to protect them?

Let me know what you think.