Thanet Council lifts ban on Ramsgate live export trade

THANET District Council has lifted its temporary ban on the movement of live animal exports out of the Port of Ramsgate with immediate effect.

The ban, imposed after an incident on September 12 when more than 40 sheep were shot by RSPCA officers at the port on welfare grounds, was due to be challenged in a judicial review by the company operating the trade on December 11.

On October 16, a judge lifted the ban until the outcome of the judicial review was determined, allowing the port to remain open to the trade in the interim.

However, following legal advice ahead of the hearing the council has decided to unilaterally lift its ban.  On this basis, it has asked Barco de Vapor, the transporters and owners of the ferry, Joline, to drop its legal High Court proceedings.

The council said the legal advice revealed that, ‘in the eyes of the law, the basis on which the ban had originally been imposed could no longer be sustained’.

The council said its decision also comes in the wake of Defra’s review into the circumstances and procedures of the live animals trade following the incident on September 12.

The council had argued that the incident showed it was the ‘victim of a situation’ where a decision was taken to off-load the animals found to be lame into the port enclosure and proceed with the slaughter of 40 sheep.

It said it had ‘no alternative but to impose a temporary ban on live exports on the ground that the lack of facilities at the port was detrimental to the welfare of animals and put the safety of its staff at risk’.

However the council has now conceded that: “Although still underway, it is very unlikely that the review will require additional facilities to be provided at or by the Port. Instead this will focus on revisions to the current arrangements. From the council’s point of view, this is a significant factor to be taken into account when deciding whether to continue with the legal case.”

Cabinet Member, Cllr Michelle Fenner, said: “Our position has always been to work within the legal framework to ensure the welfare of animals. The decision to impose the temporary ban at the Port was not taken lightly, following the horrific incidents in September, and we still consider this action to have been correct.

“In terms of now having to lift the ban, our hand has again been forced as we are duty bound to act in accordance with the law. We have to consider our absolute obligation to protect the public purse.

“As we’ve done everything in our power to get to this point, it is disappointing, however we have worked extremely hard in recent months and will continue to push the agencies involved in whatever legal way we can to ensure that the welfare of animals is protected.”

NFU chief livestock adviser Peter Garbutt said: “The NFU has consistently said that moving live animals throughout Europe is a legitimate and lawful activity and it is reassuring that these latest developments bear this out.

“Safeguarding the welfare of their animals during transport is a top priority for hauliers and farmers and the NFU has long called for the current controls to be rigorously enforced across the EU.”

He said the NFU now wanted to the Government report on the events at Ramsgate on September 12 ‘released as soon as possible’ and hoped it ‘will examine fully the roles that everyone at the port played in the events that unfolded’.

Compassion in World Farming director of public Affairs, Dil Peeling, says:  “We share Thanet District Council’s disappointment at having to drop their attempt to suspend the trade from Ramsgate, a port that is clearly not fit for live exports. It is clear this needs a solution at the national level and we are urging the government to do the right thing and stop live exports for slaughter from this country.”

Earlier, this week John Onderwater, of the company Barco de Vapor accused the council of ‘obstructing its legal business’ and of ‘rallying up protesters’ against the trade, claims the council denied.

Readers' comments (11)

  • If the Council are obliged to lift the ban on live exports then the Government should should amend the law by making it an offence to export live animals for slaughter

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • Or maybe we could do away with the pointless hysterics and focus on making sure the standards are right and the procedures are appropriate.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • If supermarkets stop selling lamb that has travelled half way round the world. We would not have to export are lambs . If do gooders like irene put pressure on supermarkets / general publicto too support british produce

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • How embarrasing for thanet district council, just shows what dirty tricks have been employed by the animal rights horde.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • Embarassing? They were the ones that backed the ban!

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • Why are the animal rights brigade not wanting to see this government report on the sheep that were drowned anymore?

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • If money was the issue, why haven't the RSPCA stepped in as they said they would?

    "RSPCA chief executive Gavin Grant said: "Let me say bluntly to the exporters if you attempt to re-open this trade either here in Ipswich or back in Ramsgate or somewhere else, you'll find the RSPCA inspectorate waiting for you. If you try and force that through the courts of law you'll find our solicitors waiting there for you too." "

    Time to put his money where his mouth is!

    Of course, if the defence was dropped due to the fact that they shouldn't have put a ban in place in the first place which contravened free trade in the EU then I'm sure that a compensation claim will surely be on the way.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • ann adley | 30 November 2012 2:00 pm

    Be under no llusion Thanet council "backed down" because what it had done was illegal, i fear you have no comprehension of that since you feel everything that you disagree with must be illegal - whether it is or not! If this had gone to court the exporters would have wiped the floor with Thanet council, mainy because it is absolutely normal to transport animals in this way, it is not inhumane, it is not cruel and it is perfectly reasonable. What is not reasonable is to be bullied by the fanatic fringe who pollute this issue with propaganda and lies!

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • Anonymous | 30 November 2012 9:16 am

    It is highly embarassing for Thanet council. They acted far and away outside their powers and responsibilities and were completely illegal. As for the animal rights hordes - that is exactly what they are! - there may be oaps holding banners but that is is only the surface, there are people just underneath the surface that are far more insidious that are being supported by the oap banner holders.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • I think that animal rights activists would have done far more than stand at a port with a banner but I don't recall anything of this nature happening?
    What is embarassing about a local Council not having any money,How many people cannot afford to fight in the Courts due to lack of funds despite believing in the cause they are fighting.
    As far as the RSPCA are concerned I think you should watch and wait,along with CIWF they are committed to help the residents of Ramsgate and the campaign,rather than diminish,will intensify.
    BTW< I'm a Grandmother raised on meat and two veg sourced locally and I do support ethical British farmers but live export merely for slaughter is a bridge too far.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

View results 10 per page | 20 per page

Have your say


Related images

Register your email address for Farmers Guardian e-bulletins

Get the latest from Farmers Guardian delivered straight to your inbox. Click here to sign-up today

Already receiving bulletins? Sign-in to edit your preferences