Given the document below, determine if the summary is factually consistent with the document. Together with the answer provide evidence that supports it. 

Document: Welsh ministers had refused to support NAME_1 AM NAME_2 NAME_3's attempt to introduce a bill that would protect the names of houses and farms, fields, natural features and landscapes. NAME_4 said there had been strong support for his proposed bill from external organisations. But the Welsh Government's NAME_5 said the proposals were not feasible. All the opposition groups - NAME_1, UKIP and the Conservatives - supported the proposal, but with Labour opposed AMs voted 28 against to 25 for. NAME_4's bill would have deployed a range of measures to protect names, including establishing a system where people who want to change a historic name must seek consent to do so, and a general prohibition on changing a historical place name. The proposal had followed a series of rows over changes to names over the years, including a dispute where the Grade I-listed NAME_6 near

Summary: 1. The proposal had followed a series of rows over changes to names over the years, including a dispute where the Grade I-listed NAME_6 near Skates was referred to as Wynnborn mansion in online marketing material.

Answer "Yes" or "No" and provide evidence.

Answer:


 Your answer should have exactly 5 paragraphs. Make sure that the 3rd paragraph starts with the word "never" and that each paragraph is separated by two new lines.
user