LET’S be clear from the outset, he said as we sat down.

“Everything that’s out there is 100 per cent total speculation, so anything you have heard in the press is simply somebody’s opinion.

“Our Government hasn’t made any announcement about the future after Brexit.”

What the Government has said is that the current system of European law and subsidies will be adhered to until we leave Europe in 2019, and after that, there will be a transitional period – until 2022 – during which that situation will continue.

But the latter part is based on the lifespan of the current parliament, so there are no guarantees. If there is an election before 2022, all bets will be off.

Charles, one of the directors of Youngs RPS land and property consultants based in Hexham, pointed out that while there has been a broad indication that subsidies will indeed continue, there has been no promise to maintain them at the current level.

A new agricultural policy needs to be drawn up before the level of support being offered is set, but Charles, for one, believes the taxpayer should be educated about where their money is going – and why.

“Agriculture deserves our support,” he said. “We have subsidised food production to keep consumers comfortable in the pocket.

“If we suddenly stop doing that, many farms will not be viable, so if we want them to crack on producing good quality food at a good price, we need to continue in similar vein or else accept the consumer will pay significantly more.”

In his view, there were agricultural sectors that had been receiving money since the current flat rate was introduced, during the last big European shake-up in 2005, that they really didn’t need.

While the flat rate payment had ended, the tendency of farmers to expand their flocks and herds unnecessarily, because direct payments had been paid per head of livestock, had continued since subsidies were spread across the whole of agriculture.

“If we are reforming the system, we’ve got to recognise that big doesn’t necessarily need subsidy in the same way small does,” he said. “Because the latter, by their very nature, have smaller and smaller margins and therefore need more help.

“Some of the big lowland farmers who have thousands of hectares are raking in subsidies that could be much better spent in the more marginal areas.

“I think they have the payments the wrong way round. In the lowlands, the payment is £320 per hectare, but for moorland it’s £50.

“Yes, there are a lot more hectares of moorland, but it doesn’t equate to £260 per hectare difference!”

It was a no-brainer as far as he was concerned: hill farmers had to be put at the front of the queue when Britain’s agricultural policy was redefined.

A hill farmers compensatory allowance had once acknowledged that they had to work harder for much less return on their investment than lowland farmers. Perhaps more of a social payment than a production subsidy, it had helped upland folk keep hold of their farms.

Charles said: “I’m quite keen to see subsidy go back to direct payments for some sectors, such as upland cattle, for example. They are so expensive, they’re not making any money, so a subsidy to keep cattle in the uplands would help.”

And when informed opinion expected future subsidies to be tied even more closely to the environmental benefits they reaped, surely it was time to acknowledge the part farmers already play in maintaining the environment.

What would the Lake District, Northumberland National Park and the uplands in general look like if farmers suddenly stopped farming and the land returned to what it was 1,000 years ago? he posited.

“As a trade-off, what do we get as a nation for the payments?

“Do we look at more of the same or do we make higher payments for even greater environmental benefits or do we acknowledge there is environmental benefit already without change?

“People want to see farmers doing something for their money, but this country already produces a very high quality of food with high animal welfare standards – and let’s face it, when we leave Europe, we are going to have to retain that competitive edge.

“Farmers are doing a really good job looking after the countryside too, so do we want change for change’s sake?

“No. What we need is greater awareness of what farmers actually do and the services they already provide.”