TWENTY-seven years ago Bradford Council's ruling Labour Group lost power to the Conservatives because Labour councillors were seriously divided on the pressing matter of what to do about the increasing incursions of illegal travellers and the mess they left behind.

Younger, more ideological elements regarded them as akin to an ethnic minority with a distinctive culture worthy of respect and always referred to them as travellers. The Human Rights Equality Act 2010 was 22 years away.

Others saw them as an expensive nuisance whose lack of consideration for tax-paying Bradford residents was proving politically embarrassing.

The first group wanted more pitches to add to the two official sites which already existed. The second group wanted the council to impose a form of designation on wandering groups who turned up on public and private land without leave and move encampments to the metropolitan district's border.

The majority of the people who complained to the T&A wanted decisive action. Failure to take it led to defeat at two district council by-elections at Odsal for Labour. The Conservatives, led by Eric Pickles in 1988, took power by using the second and casting vote of the Lord Mayor (a Conservative) in full council.

MORE BEHIND THE NEWS HEADLINES

They did the same again in 1989, retaining the Lord Mayoralty for a second consecutive year instead of passing it on to the Liberals or Labour.

Travellers have been in the news again over the past year or so, setting up encampments all over the district including a war memorial site. With district council elections coming up on May 7, which is also General Election day, evidently the local authority is keen to be doing something.

But whether issuing a 16-page document unmemorably called The Bradford District Joint Working for the Management of Unauthorised Encampments will be adequate to demonstrate this awaits public reaction.

The document includes ten-point list setting out what itinerants must not do - break into land or property, obstruct roads or footpaths, dump rubbish, interfere with water and power supplies, for example.

Public spaces barred to encampments include school playing fields, cemeteries, hospital grounds and medical practice car parks.

Councillor Val Slater, who holds the portfolio for housing, transport and planning, declared: "This document sets out clearly the protocol we and the police work to when dealing with unauthorised travelling encampments."

This assumes that itinerants will read the document and follow instructions accordingly. Why should they when they have not done so for the last 30 years? What action will be taken when the next band of illegal campers turn up on a station car park, a sports field or brownfield site?

At first an awful lot of talking between the police, the council's Gypsy Liaison Service and the local authority, partly to decide which of them is to take the lead and partly to make sure that the correct procedures are followed.

If the encampment is on common land or council-owned land the local authority will usually take the lead. The document states why:-

"The Council has powers under the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 and also powers under Common Law and Civil Procedure rules on land it owns or in which it has a management interest."

If the encampment is on private land the Gypsy Liaison Service will take the lead. But their role is "solely to offer advice to the landowner on regaining possession of the land." The GLS is also obliged to provide "regular updates" about the process to management, councillors, area teams, the land owning department and the council's press office.

While all this necessary communication is going on what happens if an incident occurs requiring a rapid response from the authorities?

The document does not spell this out. It states: "Any decision for the Police to take action (under Sections 61 or 62 of the Criminal Justice Act) must be compliant with the terms of the Human Rights Act 1998 and be legal, necessary and proportionate. This applies to the rights of both the Gypsies/Travellers and those in the settled community...

"The simple fact that certain individuals within an unauthorised encampment are acting in a criminal or anti-social manner does not necessarily make it appropriate to evict everyone on that particular site."

If Police use their powers under Section 62 to remove trespassers then illegal campers automatically commit an offence if within three months of being told to leave they return to any site in the metropolitan district.

Under Section 61 unauthorised campers who are told to leave will be breaking the law if they return to the same site within three months.

However: "The mere presence of an encampment without any aggravating factors should not create an expectation that police will use Section 62 or 61 powers."

Proper use of agreed procedures should reduce "the scope for challenge through the courts..." Arguably, this is the primary purpose of the document.