When driving a few weeks ago, two things on the car radio took my attention.

Michael Gove, when speaking about farm support after Brexit, said that farmers will have to earn their money.

Maybe not well phrased to those who style themselves hard grafters, but I knew what he meant.

Personally, I have never been at ease with the fact that farmers got paid merely for occupying land.

It should be remembered that the original objective was to discourage over production, which diverted cash from farmers’ pockets to expensive storage and disposal. In this it was successful.

Gove also mentioned that there would be an environmental requirement for future support.

Later in the same programme, a ranger at Royal Birkdale Golf Course, which is an SSSI and was at the time hosting The Open Championship, said that, if a spectator discovered a natterjack toad, a greater crested newt or a sand lizard, they must on no account touch it. They must immediately report the matter to the relevant authority, himself or a colleague.

They would move it to a less populated spot. But, when asked how to recognise them, he replied that the only one he had actually seen was the natterjack toad so couldn’t describe the other two.

One of the advantages of being a farmer, whether one who earns their money to Michael Gove’s satisfaction or otherwise, is not only an awareness of the beauty of the countryside but also a knowledge of how it came to look that way.

Often now, when visiting a new part of the country, I try to take in some of the environment, whether in the wild state or sculpted by the hand of man.

A few weeks ago, within a week, this ranged from Balmoral in Aberdeenshire, to two minor stately homes in Oxfordshire, Rousham and Broughton Grange, and then a climb to the top of Lochnagar.

The first three places of outstanding natural beauty were mostly man made and the last was landscape at its most raw. While the landscaping at Balmoral and Rousham had been done over centuries, Broughton Grange was different.

Twenty-five years ago it had been farm land. Walking in the walled garden I found it hard to believe that this beautiful place had only been created in 2001.

Much further landscaping is ongoing, both formal and informal, including, since 2004, planting an arboretum (a wood grown not only for timber production but also for visual impact). This will eventually cover 80 acres.

Strong structural planting of numerous species of tree complement the terracing, paths and ponds.

When I chatted with one of the gardeners he often referred to 'the present owner'. The information sheet about the garden too only referred to 'the present owner'.

Intrigued by the present owner’s wish for anonymity, I discovered via Google that it was Stephen Hester, the former CEO of RBS.

When with RBS, he was paid an annual salary of £1.1m. In addition, he was paid a bonus and contribution to pension of £1.5m in 2010. He was offered a bonus of almost £1m in 2012. Following pressure from politicians and the public, as losses continued, he declined this.

He also declined a further bonus the following year after the RBS computer problems. When he left after five years, his severance deal was £1.6m.

Judgement of bankers and their rewards apart, the point is that, with cash, real environmental enhancement which everyone will enjoy for centuries is possible within a short timespan. All recent regulation, as dictated by the CAP, to improve the environment has, in contrast, been so short term as to have negligible effect.

Vast sums have been spent making underpasses for frogs to cross roads, stalling development because a rare insect, reptile or flower may or may not be there and devising pointless crop schedules, have been not only ineffective, but a complete waste of money.

At present, the UK pays £6.2bn into the CAP. Farmers receive £2.5bn back, mainly as Basic Farm Payment. After Brexit there will be money to spare to make Britain a better place.

Without doubt, our primary objective must be to negotiate hard for the most advantageous trade deals. Governments in Edinburgh and London must never be allowed to forget that food production is our prime mover – nevertheless, as environmental payments are definitely going to be an increasing part of support, we must have a strong say in how the money is directed.

Above all, in addition to genuinely enhancing the countryside, it must leave farmers with a profit for their efforts.

Maybe the answer is trees. A month ago the Forestry Commission unveiled 'The sheep and trees forestry grant' to encourage woodland planting on a relatively modest scale, with the objective of providing timber and also sheltering hill sheep.

The funding for a 50h wood could be up to £200k for planting, with a further £40k available for creating access tracks. This seems generous. I wonder if the scheme is some decades too late as more and more of Scotland’s hill land is devoid of sheep.

Established shelter belts are being cut down and are not being replanted. Presumably, this is to benefit grouse shooting which, in every way, is an entirely different economy from hill sheep farming.

We hear over and over again that we should plan for Brexit. We know that support will be, to a greater degree, paid for improving the environment. We know that policy regarding international tariffs will be influenced by industries other than farming and we know that available cash is being targeted by others with their own take on the environment.

My own suggestion is that payments should be made for planting and maintaining, or sometimes resurrecting, woodland in areas of lower agricultural value that is visually attractive as well as providing good timber and a haven for songbirds.

Payments should be made over a longer period than in previous schemes on condition that the trees are properly thinned and maintained, rather than allowed to degenerate into scrub.

Above all, farmers should not be left out of pocket but allowed to profit as they would have done on the other parts of their farms which are in food production.