Q As a businessman employing several women, and about to recruit another, I was slightly bemused by some comments made recently by a newly elected MEP.

Godfrey Bloom, a Euro MEP for the UK Independence Party, said: "No self-respecting small businessman with a brain in the right place would ever employ a lady of child-bearing age."

I consider myself an extremely successful businessman with my brain "in the right place", so why shouldn't I employ women who may consider having a child in the near future?

Do you think this could be detrimental to my business? Is this new MEP right? Do you think I should reconsider recruiting another woman?

A First, let me say that perhaps Mr Bloom was trying to highlight other important issues through his rather stark comments.

I myself heard these comments, but later read he was trying to illustrate the point that so-called equal rights were putting many women out of work.

However, in answer to your question, obviously as an employer you will be concerned about a woman having to leave your company to have a baby, but the onus is on you to plan ahead.

These days, you are equally obliged to offer male employees who have become fathers paternity leave.

Therefore, should you apply Mr Bloom's comments to women of a childbearing age and men? If you were to do this, you would never be able find enough employees to keep your business afloat.

Maternity rights change regularly and it is vital that you keep up to date with the changes.

The law says everyone has to be given basic entitlements, no matter how long they have worked at your company and no matter what hours they work.

Another point to note is that all employees are entitled to paid time off for antenatal care, for example, attending antenatal classes.

Despite what Godfrey Bloom might say, you cannot sack a woman if she gets pregnant and you must not treat a woman unfairly because of her pregnancy.

Be warned, acting on Mr Bloom's words could land you in deep trouble because an employee can make a claim via an employment tribunal for compensation if they believe they have been treated unfairly.

The comments are pretty outrageous and have provoked a backlash from many. As an employer of hundreds of women all over the country, I would advise you to watch your step and do not listen to everything our politicians say.

Q Many of my company's customers are sole traders or small businesses. When they don't pay up, it seems it is cheaper for me to let debt go bad, as whenever I challenge a debt under £250, I end up paying my solicitor more in costs whether I win or lose. This makes no sense. What can I do?

A The only way to solve such problems with small debtors of £250 or less is to prevent the problem arising in the first place - it's as simple as that.

There is little more that you can do in terms of recovery procedures than you are at the moment, but you are wasting valuable business time on this problem when you could be selling your service or products to other customers.

Ask yourself why they are unwilling or unable to pay. Let us assume they have no genuine cause for dissatisfaction; the product is good quality and good value.

Is it because they know they can get away without paying? If so, you have only your own credit controller to blame.

If you have not got one, then hire one, and do not be scared of the cost. You can fill their time with other important tasks as well as debtor-chasing. Otherwise, allocate a member of your staff and train them well first.

Is it because they are just poor quality customers that you should not be dealing with anyway? Categorise your clients from A to D. Be rigorous and get rid of the "D" clients. If your business cannot survive without them, then you really have got a problem.

Apply stricter terms of trade. The obvious answers are to insist on cash on delivery or payment by credit card unless they can pass a rigorous set of criteria to qualify for a credit account. Counteract the cost of the credit by adding two or three per cent to the price.

But will the punters go somewhere else and lose you market share? If so then "good" is my answer. Your competitors will be burdened with the same problems that you have now.

Q I am thinking of starting an enterprise with a new product, but want to keep it separate from my current business.

I have built up quite a successful little firm, which is named after me, but I want to give the new business its own identity. My only concern is that customers associate my name with the business and I might be cutting off my nose to spite my face by removing a direct association between myself and the business. What do you think?

A As someone who has run successful businesses branded with and without my name above the door, I can see the benefits of both arguments.

It is great to see your name outside your business premises. You cannot deny the personal pride you feel because of the time and hard work you have put in.

It also helps when you are dealing directly with customers that they feel they are dealing with the top man. A reputation can be as good to trade on, sometimes, as any product or service.

Let me ask you a couple of questions. Have you asked yourself whether the success of your existing business is down to your name or to the way you run it? Have all the working practices, customer service and quality of product you have put in place created customer loyalty and growing sales?

If you can answer yes to these questions, your decision might have been made for you.

No matter what service or product you are providing your customers, you can almost replicate the way you run your business in any enterprise.

Although I have been a success in a wide-ranging number of sectors, I have kept the business practices and levels of service the same, which helps create a solid base for each of my enterprises. In my case, though, I also keep my name above the door. Why? Because I can!

Q The small office I run has more women than men, which I have no problem with, but I was thinking of arranging regular "lads' night out" for me and the two other male members of staff. Do you think I will alienate the ladies in the firm?

A There's being PC and there's being PC. I am sure the women in your office would have no problem with their male colleagues getting together socially.

I am 100 per cent certain they are more than capable of arranging their own nights out if they wanted.

The only thing to be careful of is to not continue the lads' night out-style conversations in the office, because these might alienate female colleagues and in some cases cause offence.

Maybe the issue is that you are more worried that if the women, who are the majority, mix socially, then the men will be left out.

Something this trivial only becomes an issue if you let it, and being in charge of a team of people, you have to be seen to support the whole team and not become part of a faction.

Why not arrange regular nights out for everyone? They can be great for morale and build better relationships between people.

Also, some people find that dealing with issues between staff members are best dealt with in a relaxed atmosphere.

You might find yourself to be a good manager in the eyes of your employees if you can create harmony in the office and a team who work together and support each other.

Published: 03/08/2004