LEGAL advice given to Thanet council over live animal exports from the Port of Ramsgate supports the view there is no legal way to prevent the trade.

Thanet's Labour group tabled a motion to urge the authority to explore whether the Lisbon Treaty offers a loophole to stop the trade which started in May.

Thanet council had tried to strongly resist the use of the port for these exports, but could find no legal basis to refuse it.

Since May, the council has sought specialist legal advice to confirm the position.

The advice states Ramsgate is an open port under national law and that the council cannot rely on its local byelaws to contradict national legislation or EU legislation, which governs free trade, said a spokesman.

Neither can the Lisbon Treaty offer hope, they added.

Leader of the council Bob Bayford, said: "We are very aware of people's feelings on this highly emotive issue and that many would prefer not to see the export of animals from Ramsgate.

"The council strongly resisted using the port for this trade on moral grounds, but we are governed by the law. We don't have the support of the law to prevent this trade.

"Where people have tried before to prevent this trade elsewhere, it's ended up costing them dearly, with the organisations left facing huge claims for damages. I'm sure some people would encourage us to take that risk, but we're responsible for public money.

"We can't risk potentially hundreds of thousands of pounds of council taxpayers' money, without proper supporting legal advice and we simply don't have that."

Labour's Councillor Michelle Fenner said: "Sadly, the transport of live animals has taken place on at least two occasions. The company owners have not requested any facilities from Thanet council to take care of the needs of farm animals if they are stationary in the port of Ramsgate, arguing that they would move them inland.

"This type of uncaring treatment has led to the Lisbon Treaty, article 13 (2009) which re-classifies live animals as 'sentient beings' rather than 'goods'.

"The current argument against a ban is that it would allow a quantitative restriction on imports and exports.

"This argument is based on legislation from 1847 which assumes live farm animals to be 'goods'."