Officials of the Irish Ladies' Golf Union (ILGU) appear to have set themselves on a collision course with their male counterparts in the Golfing Union of Ireland (GUI) over the issue of equality in clubs. This development comes at a time when long-standing grievances are set to be addressed by the imminent passing of the Government's Equal Status Bill.

The ILGU's objectives are set out in a booklet which they have sent to their member clubs. Among other things, they are demanding numerical equality with men. And they also lay the blame firmly at the feet of the GUI for years of discrimination.

When top officials of both unions met before Christmas to discuss the issue, the GUI made it clear that they could not endorse a document demanding numerical equality. "That is simply outside the powers of the GUI," said honorary secretary Gerry O'Brien.

Though it can be viewed as a worthy, long-term objective, numerical equality doesn't make much sense right now, given that the number of male golfers is more than double that of women. And this cannot be attributed entirely to discrimination.

Meanwhile, the GUI expressed full support for the Equal Status Bill and its intended consequences for golf in this country. So they were surprised, to put it mildly, to find themselves now accused of deliberately excluding women from ownership of golf club property.

The ILGU document states: "They (women) have been confined to a category known as lady member or lady associate member with no right to attend and vote at general meetings of a club and with limited playing time . . . The dividing up of memberships in such a way as to exclude women from having an input in the control of golf clubs had its origin in the constitution of the Golfing Union of Ireland."

To emphasise the point, Section 9 (3) of the GUI's former constitution is quoted. This was removed at an a.g.m. of the GUI in 1986, largely through the efforts of the former honorary secretary of the union, Des Rea O'Kelly.

Though the section was unquestionably odious in concept, this was due more to clumsy wording rather than its actual content. Effectively it threatened disaffiliation from the union on any club which permitted women to attend or vote at annual general or special meetings.

Such a ban would still be valid, 14 years on; just as it would not be acceptable for men to attend annual general or special meetings of the ILGU members.

The problem for women, however, was that the GUI members of clubs were also the beneficial owners of the facility, a problem which has since been addressed in the so-called three-tier constitution.

Anyway, the GUI refute the claims in the ILGU document. "Our constitution was written for the sole purpose of the administration of men's amateur golf in this country," added O'Brien. "While it contains clauses that are mandatory for inclusion in the constitution of an affiliated club, such clauses are relative solely to the men's section of a golf club.

"The GUI does not have the right to instruct a golf club as to how it should structure its club membership, and indeed has never done so," O'Brien said.

To summarise their document, the ILGU suggest that the business and affairs of a club should be under the control of a management committee to which the male and female officers of the club should be nominated, and to which male and female members can be elected at the annual general meeting of the club.

They also want lady membership to be retained by those who wish to continue in that category. But it should be phased out and no new members should be admitted to it.

There should be no entrance-fee for women becoming ordinary members, and those women should pay the same annual subscription as men. And women becoming ordinary members must be given the same or reasonably equivalent rights as male, ordinary members.

Finally, they claim that the admission of new members should be on an alternate male/female basis. The ladies' section should select new female members and the men's section new male members, while the numbers would be controlled by the management committee. Those points are all perfectly reasonable. But it seems extraordinary that the ILGU should couch their document in such militant terms as to antagonise GUI-affiliated male members, with whom they will be obliged, ultimately, to negotiate.

Government legislation is expected to end discrimination. Within golf clubs themselves, however, the way forward will be dependent largely on goodwill. In this context, the ILGU don't appear to be doing their member clubs any favours.