Potato growers and horticulture businesses that very recently and firmly rejected the principle of a statutory levy to fund research will not now agree to the creation of a new one.

The growers who secured last February's ballot against the AHDB levy this week slammed suggestions by other industry figures that levy-funded research could return if it was more 'grower-led'.

Both English NFU representatives and the newly emerged Growers Better Levy Group had spoken out in favour of some sort of statutory levy to fund sectoral research, to the 'concern and disappointment' of the anti-levy petitioners.

Lincolnshire potato and vegetable grower John Bratley said: “In two decisive votes, two-thirds of growers across the horticulture and potato sectors unambiguously rejected the idea of a statutory levy. However, over the last three weeks we have seen comments which appear to be trying to re-write this result and replace one statutory levy with another.”

Speaking at the Festival of Fresh conference on July 13,the chair of the NFU Horticulture and Potatoes board, Ali Capper, suggested that the majority of growers supported a new statutory levy, saying: “I think the vast majority of growers see the necessity for some form of small statutory or mandatory levy.”

Mr Bratley retorted: “The vast majority of growers rejected the idea of a statutory levy. After all the ballot was on the continuation of a compulsory levy, not the structure of the AHDB. Almost 61% of horticulture growers and more than 66% of potato growers rejected a compulsory levy, so it is unclear how Ms Capper can say the majority support it.”

He also claimed that regional NFU staff had since distanced themselves from Ms Capper’s comments, stating that she was speaking in her role as chair of British Apples and Pears rather than in her NFU capacity. Mr Bratley was not convinced: “If Ms Capper is so supportive of a compulsory levy, it brings into question her ability to represent growers within the NFU. The NFU needs to remember that the vast majority of growers who voted against a statutory levy are also a majority of its members.”

In another development, the Growers’ Better Levy Group, representing 36 horticultural businesses, issued a statement which said: "The continuation of a small Statutory Levy is necessary to fund critical work."

Mr Bratley's cohort, Spalding-based vegetable farmer Peter Thorold, criticised that group for claiming to represent the industry: “The GBLG represents just 3% of those businesses which were eligible to vote on the continuation of a statutory levy. They may well wish to jointly establish and fund their own non-statutory body for their own R and D. However, they must not be allowed to have their research needs subsidised by an industry wide statutory levy which growers have overwhelmingly rejected.

“In funding their own R and D they will be able to claim substantial tax relief which is not available under a statutory scheme …. that in itself makes a bureaucratic statutory scheme a bad deal.”

However, the petitioners welcomed the recent comment by Defra Minister Victoria Prentiss that officialdom must 'respect the result of the ballot'.