Given the document below, you have to determine if "Yes" or "No", the summary is factually consistent with the document.

Document:
The Fermanagh MLA NAME_1 tweeted after NAME_2 appeared on a BBC radio programme in May 2014. On Friday, the High Court was told the tweet read "NAME_2 speaks to NAME_3 about past. "I wonder if he will reveal how many people he harassed and shot as a member of the UDR." NAME_4 served in the UDR for 10 years, between 1982 and 1992. He is now the MP for Fermanagh and South Tyrone The High Court heard that he has a clear MoD record. The court was told that NAME_4 was alerted to the tweet by the victims campaigner NAME_5 and by DUP assembly member NAME_6, who is to become Northern Ireland first minister on Monday. The tweet was deleted by Mr NAME_7 within an hour of being posted. The apology, which must also be posted on Twitter before the end of

Summary:
1. A NAME_8 MLA has agreed to pay compensation to a former Ulster Unionist Party (UDR) MP after he tweeted that he had harassed and shot people as a member of the party.

Is the summary factually consistent with the document? (Yes/No)
Start your answer explicitly with "Yes" or "No", and if you answer no, explain which sentence is inconsistent and why.