Well, I have the article here. You've just told us that you will consider responses, but here you say,

'Asked whether she would consider maintaining some form of direct payment if the vast majority of respondents to the consultation requested it, she said: “No"'.

Now, only last week you were trying to rewrite history about what Sue Hayman had said in comments about payments in England, and today you're trying to maybe rewrite a little history here in terms of what you said as well. You're starting to sound a bit like a Welsh Donald Trump, I venture to say. And it does have the feel of a bad joke about it, doesn't it, really? When is a consultation not a consultation? Well, when the Cabinet Secretary has clearly decided exactly what she's going to do regardless of what anybody says. And that's not a good look, is it? You've really botched this process, I venture to say. First, it was your intervention with your letter midway through the consultation to farmers intervening and influencing the discussion then, and now you're saying that, regardless of what people say, you're not going to listen to their views. So, how can the public have confidence in this process, Cabinet Secretary? Do not your comments undermine the whole validity of your public consultation—or so-called public consultation? And does it not bring into question the integrity of the Welsh Government's engagement with stakeholders on this issue?