Rwy’n dal i fod yn erbyn parhau gydag unrhyw fath o gymorth ‘cysylltiedig’ gwirfoddol sy’n aneffeithiol iawn o ran annog ffermwyr i wneud penderfyniadau cynhyrchu sy’n seiliedig ar y farchnad ac sydd hefyd yn arwain at fanteision ac anfanteision cystadleuol rhwng Aelod-wladwriaethau. Dechreuodd Cymru, fel gweddill Prydain, weithredu’r SPS fel cymorth wedi’i ddadgysylltu yn 2005. Nid wyf yn gweld unrhyw achos dros ganiatáu taliadau colofn 1 sy’n uniongyrchol gysylltiedig â lefelau cynhyrchu. Hefyd, ni fyddai rhoi taliadau’n seiliedig ar arwynebedd ar gyfer sectorau a rhanbarthau penodol (gyda chyfyngiadau naturiol penodol) yn golygu cyllid ychwanegol; yn hytrach, byddai cymorth o’r fath yn dod trwy “frigdorri”, a fyddai’n arwain at daliadau llai i’r mwyafrif, ac ar yr un pryd yn ychwanegu elfen ychwanegol o gymhlethdod gweinyddol.
I remain opposed to continuing any form of voluntary coupled support that does little to encourage farmers to make market based production decisions and also leads to competitive advantages and disadvantages between Member States. Wales, as with the rest of the UK, implemented the decoupled SPS in 2005. I see no case for allowing Pillar 1 payments that link directly to production. In addition, providing area based payment support for specific sectors and regions (with specific natural constraints) would not represent extra funding; rather such support would in effect be generated by a “top slicing” mechanism, resulting in reduced payments for the majority while at the same time adding a further element of administrative complexity.