We'll now turn to the party leaders to question the First Minister, and the first up today is the leader of Plaid Cymru, Leanne Wood. 

Diolch yn fawr iawn. First Minister, the media has reported today that at least 271 highly vulnerable mental health patients have died over the last six years after failings in NHS care, and that 136 NHS bodies have been given legal warnings by coroners. As is often the case, the report refers to patients in England and Wales. Can you tell us whether any Welsh NHS body has been subject to a legal warning by coroners regarding the death of a mental health patient? 

I'm not aware of one, but I will write to the leader of Plaid Cymru with more information on that. 

Okay, thank you for that.

There have been many calls for an inquiry into these deaths, including calls from your own party. Now, we know that there have been failings in mental health care in Wales. We can all remember the Tawel Fan scandal. So, I don't think there's any room for complacency on this question. Suicide rates are higher in Wales than they are in Scotland and England, yet we also know that a minority of people who lose their lives have had contact with mental health services in the year prior to their death. This suggests that the mental health needs of all, but possibly young people in particular, are not being met. Can our public services be more proactive in identifying and supporting people who are experiencing mental health crises to get help earlier, and do you have an access problem with your mental health services? 

I think there are issues with certain sections of the population not accessing services, not wanting to or not recognising where they may have symptoms that imply a negative state of mental health. Of course, through the schools, we have a support system now that helps young people, and we would encourage GPs, as they talk to people who come to see them perhaps with physical ailments, to actually try to identify whether there is something deeper that is affecting a person's overall state of health. 

I think you can do much more than that, First Minister. We know that children and young people with mental health difficulties go an average of 10 years between first becoming unwell and getting any help. And many of us here in this room, I'm sure, will have casework of patients who have had to fight to get any support at all.

Now, I've got reason to believe that the number of people detained by the police under section 136 for their own safety, which is due to be published soon, will have gone up dramatically. I've also been informed that because some patients are not deemed to be at immediate risk, despite having been sectioned, they can be waiting days for transfer. Service capacity is clearly inadequate to deal with crisis, and reducing the usage of section 136 has to now be a priority for your Government.

I will come back to this issue when those figures are published, but wouldn't you agree with me now that it's a good time to have a wider inquiry into our emergency mental health system to identify these failings? Isn't it time to stop pretending that everything is fine, when clearly these figures demonstrate that it's not?

I think it's important to wait to see what those figures actually show, and then, on the basis of what we find, to see what action needs to be taken. In terms of mental health in Wales, we've seen the provision for children and young people improve substantially with the extra money—£8 million, if I remember—that went into those services, and, of course, what is being done in schools to assist young people as well. She mentions figures that are yet to come out. I think it's important to wait until those figures are out and then make an assessment of what more needs to be done in order to bring the figure down—those who are subject to section 136 orders and, of course, those who, tragically, take their own lives. 

The leader of the opposition, Andrew R.T. Davies.

Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer. First Minister, I join you in your comments earlier, when you answered question 1, on the heroic efforts of the emergency services and everyone over the winter weather that we had back last Thursday. There have been some heroic stories, but also some heart-warming ones as well. Equally, it boils down to the fact that what local authorities, health boards and other public bodies are facing once the clean-up operation is complete is a rather large financial bill that will land in treasurers' departments the length and breadth of local authorities across Wales. What discussions, if any, at this very early stage, has the Welsh Government had with public sector bodies—health boards and local authorities—in helping them meet this financial bill, which they weren't expecting this late in the winter?

There have been discussions with local authorities. At this moment in time, we have asked local authorities to quantify what the extra pressures might be in order for us to better understand the situation.

I take it from that that there will be Welsh Government support coming forward for local authorities, First Minister, in particular some of the ones here in the south, which seem to have had the biggest quantity of snow dropped on them.

But I would like to ask you a question about the National Procurement Service, which the Public Accounts Committee looked at yesterday and which the auditor general has highlighted as being particularly poor value for money for the Welsh pound. When it was first brought forward, the then finance Secretary to the Welsh Government said that this was going to be a collaborative model to actually deliver savings in public procurement—£4 billion of public procurement goes on here in Wales. The initial sum allocated was to try to save money—around £1 billion of public procurement on electricity costs and other costs that are met. It was deemed a

'very Welsh way to meet Welsh business needs but also value for money for the Welsh pound'.

Well, virtually on all counts it seems to have missed its goals. What are you doing, First Minister, as a Government, to either make this system work better or actually reform it totally so we can get better value for the Welsh pound?

First of all, it has to be said that the NPS hasn't lost money. It's not yet at the point where it can pay for itself from levy subscriptions, but the service is on target to secure the public purchasing services envisaged, and that's about £40 million so far. The NPS actually belongs to its 73 members across the public service. It is governed by an independently chaired board, comprised of representatives of the membership. We have hosted the service and we have supported it financially, but we don't actually own the NPS alone.

I can say that uptake of NPS frameworks has increased steadily since it became fully operational in 2015, and it's still increasing. An indicative figure for spend for 2016 was £234 million, an increase of over 50 per cent on the previous year, and that means indicative savings of £14.8 million. So, we know that the service is growing. It wouldn't be the case to say that it has lost money, but it's not yet in a position where its levy subscriptions are covering its costs.

First Minister, it's unable to pay the initial capital that you made available to it of £6 million, or its annual running costs of £2.5 million. In its first year, it was only able to attract £330,000 of levy money, as you put it. It has missed virtually every target that was set in its first year—it's now in year 3. By any measure, what could have been an exciting National Procurement Service, actually delivering real value back to the taxpayer, has failed to achieve its goals. If you look at Welsh Government procurement, only 32 per cent of its own procurement is localised here in Wales. With your document 'Prosperity for All', you talk about delivering greater payback to communities across the length and breadth of Wales. Well, using the procurement service, you've failed in its first three years. How are you going to actually meet the policy initiative that is in your 'Prosperity for All' document with, obviously, delivering that Welsh pound back to businesses?

We're confident that the NPS is on target. What the NPS needs to consider is whether to increase the subscription in order to provide more revenue for itself to cover those costs in the future. But we're confident that it's on course to meet its target and, as I say, the public purchasing savings that are envisaged as part of that target we believe we will meet. What we do know is that around £40 million has been saved so far through the procurement service.  

The leader of the UKIP group, Neil Hamilton. 

Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer. All Members, I'm sure, are pleased, albeit in varying degrees, to see the return safely of the First Minister from the United States of America. I read the written statement that was published this morning by the Welsh Government of what he did on his trip there, and I was quite surprised to see that there was no mention of any meetings with members of the United States Government administration. And on the very day President Trump announced that he was intending to see tariffs introduced on steel from all parts of the world, the First Minister was meeting the person who lost to President Trump in the presidential election, Hillary Clinton. Shouldn't the First Minister be more interested in playing power politics than the politics of impotence? 

I'm not sure whether the leader of UKIP thinks I should have broken down the door of the White House in order to demand a meeting with the President of the US. It doesn't work that way, I can assure him. But, of course, the issue of steel tariffs puts a very big hole in his view of the world, a post-Brexit world, because we were told by him and by others that the way was now open for us to do a deal, a free trade agreement, with the US, and yet one of the first things the US has done is impose tariffs on steel that we actually export to the US. It's not a very friendly action, is it? 

The First Minister knows that the United States' concern about steel exports to the United States is not with Britain, because actually there's been an 11 per cent reduction in the volume and value of steel that is exported from the UK to the US in the last two years. The quarrel is with countries like China, which produces half the world's steel and where there's massive excess capacity equivalent to the entire consumption of steel in the United States over one year, and countries like Vietnam and Canada, which export to the United States 10 times as much steel as we do. The President is concerned about the effect of the North American free trade agreement with Canada and Mexico. We happen to be caught up in the slipstream of all this. The response of the European Union to the President's announcement is likely to be disastrous whilst we are within the customs union, because the European Commission now says it wants to retaliate by introducing tariffs on cars, perhaps, and other manufactured goods, which could have massive impacts upon British workers' jobs and Welsh workers' jobs over many parts of the country. If we had an independent trade policy outside the customs union of the EU, we would perhaps be able to strike our own deals with other countries, in particular the United States, which is our biggest single trading partner apart from the 27 countries of the EU.     

Let me try and educate him. First of all, US businesses want to see free trade. That much is true. The US Government does not. It does not. These steel tariffs are being imposed on all countries. He may be right in saying that China and other countries are the main target, but this is a blunt instrument that's being used against all. No-one has said in the US administration that the UK will be exempt in some way, or the EU will be exempt in some way. This is a tariff against all. He then criticises the European Union for suggesting that there may be retaliation. What does he expect? Is he saying that if the UK was not in the EU, there would be no action by the UK Government? Because if he wants a definition of impotence, he's just given it. 

The question is whether we should attempt to solve these problems by diplomacy and sensible talking to other parties, or engage in the kind of megaphone bellicosity that has come out of Brussels in the last few days. There are very serious issues at stake her. Other countries like Germany and Spain export far more steel to the United States than Britain does. So, Britain is not the cause of the current problems and concerns in the United States. Whilst it's true the announcement that's been made so far is on the basis of this tariff applying universally throughout the world, the details of what's proposed are not yet published, of course, and those are up for negotiation. The US commerce secretary has said as much.

So, I revert to the first question I asked the First Minister: does he not think it would have been sensible to open some channels of communication, even if it wasn't at the level of the President of the United States himself, who is very pro-British—it's obvious from the things that he's said in the time that he's been in office—[Interruption.] Well, Members can laugh, but the United States is globally a vastly important influence upon the economy and in particular on jobs and the livelihoods of people in this country. We should surely want to get on as well as we could with the leader of the free world and with one of our most important trading partners. 

Well, he talks about megaphone bellicosity without any sense of irony and blames Brussels for it. I have to say, the reality is that the current US Government—I don't believe this is a view shared by US businesses at all, nor those who invest in Wales—wants to impose 24 per cent tariffs on steel from the UK. I agree with him; the UK is not the main target for these tariffs, but is caught up in it anyway. Now, the Prime Minister herself has spoken to the President, to no effect at all, in terms of these tariffs being lifted. Now, is he really saying that if the US imposes tariffs on goods coming into the US, that the UK and the EU should do nothing at all in response? I'm afraid that's not the way the world works.

I'd prefer to see a situation where the US has freer trade with the EU and, by definition, the UK, but it may have escaped his attention that the US has the most protectionist Government it has had for many, many decades. It is not interested in free trade deals that are not wholly of benefit to the US. When I was in the US, one of the themes that emerged was that the NAFTA negotiations are based on the US demanding everything for itself and no flexibility as far as Canada and Mexico are both concerned. You cannot be a protectionist Government on the one hand and then say you want to have free trade on the other. I very much regret the announcement that was made by the US President in terms of steel tariffs. It may have an effect on the Welsh steel industry, but to sit back and do nothing is the most impotent response imaginable.  

Thank you. We now move back to questions on the order paper. Question 3, Mark Reckless.