If he will list his official engagements for Wednesday 11 February.

This morning, I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. I launched the new deal publicity campaign. Later today, I shall have further meetings with ministerial colleagues.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that the most unforgivable legacy of the previous Government was the huge number of young people who left school with no prospect of finding work? Will he ensure that as many employers as possible support our new deal programme, giving young people the chance that they deserve and showing the whole country the massive difference between the values of a Tory Government and a Labour Government?

Yes. Already under the new deal arrangements—although it is currently simply being piloted—thousands of young people are being interviewed and referred to employers, and already many of them are now in jobs. Many of those young people have never had any chances in life. We have already signed up 800 employers to the new deal, and we hope that—because of our just—launched campaign—many more will join us. It is a great tribute to all those who believe that the problem has to be tackled that employers, Government and local people are all working together to create a better Britain.

When the Lord Chancellor says that the Human Rights Bill will lead to a privacy law, does the Prime Minister accept his judgment?

No, it will not lead to a privacy law. The incorporation of the European convention on human rights allows us to claim in this country what we would otherwise have to claim in Europe.

The Lord Chancellor, when asked whether the Bill would lead the courts to develop a law of privacy, said yes. He said that in black and white. Now the Prime Minister contradicts him. [Interruption.] It is here; he can have a look at it. There are endless comments on the matter from the Lord Chancellor. There are enough comments on it from the Lord Chancellor for him to paper his apartment with them. Even the Home Secretary is laughing at that. Does the Prime Minister think that the Lord Chancellor was wrong? Is he contradicting the Lord Chancellor? Cardinal Wolsey could have warned the Lord Chancellor about that.

No; I have already made the position quite clear. I suspect that the Home Secretary was laughing at the right hon. Gentleman and not with him.

The Home Secretary laughs with me more than the Prime Minister would like to think. The Prime Minister keeps saying that he is opposed to a privacy law, but he continues to introduce one. Although we are used to him supporting one thing at one time and another thing at another time, it is a novelty even for him to support and oppose the same thing at the same time. Will he now agree to amend the Human Rights Bill so that there is no risk of its introducing a back-door privacy law?

We do not believe that that is the case. We are already, as the right hon. Gentleman knows, consulting the newspaper industry and others on the issue. I re-emphasise that it is important to understand that the European convention on human rights already applies but that people have to go to Europe. Under our legislation, people will be able to litigate under it in our courts. The Bill therefore takes back rights from Europe and brings them to this country. That is why it should be supported by the right hon. Gentleman.

If the Prime Minister is so sure of that, why is he not able to convince his own Lord Chancellor? Why is he not able to convince his own tutor that that is the case? If the Government want a privacy law, let us have it fully considered and debated. If we are not to have a privacy law, and if the Government do not want one, let us make that clear. If it is not going to be brought in by the back door, why not put a lock on the door and amend the Bill as proposed?

As I have already told the right hon. Gentleman, we are considering the points that have been made by the newspaper industry and others, but it is not the case that the Lord Chancellor has said that he is against self-regulation. On the contrary, he has said that he is in favour of it. However, the Bill incorporating the convention does far more than simply address issues relating to the press, privacy or the rest of it; it allows people for the first time in this country to litigate in the courts and say that the Government must act in accordance with fundamental rights. I should have thought that that was something that the Conservative party would support.

A lot of that was very interesting, but it was nothing to do with the question that I was asking the Prime Minister. At one point in his answer, the right hon. Gentleman said that he would consider the representations that had been made. Will he confirm, therefore, that the Government will consider amending the Human Rights Bill to make sure that there is no risk of a back-door privacy law coming into force through it? Will he confirm that he is considering that?

We have already confirmed that we are listening to the representations being made to us. We confirmed that a long time ago. It is important to realise, as I say, that the Bill does far more than simply deal with these issues; it deals with a range of other questions, too. I am surprised that the right hon. Gentleman still cannot bring himself to say that he supports the incorporation of the convention into British law.

It is a bizarre situation when the Lord Chancellor says that we are to have a privacy law and the Prime Minister denies it. It is a shame that the Prime Minister does not take the Lord Chancellor seriously when the Lord Chancellor takes himself so seriously. Is it not wrong to say that he opposes something while actually introducing it, to introduce a form of censorship under cover of human rights, and to speak of the rule of law while introducing the rule of lawyers? Will the right hon. Gentleman at least consider amending the Bill to deal with that point?

Frankly, it was not that great a question the first time the right hon. Gentleman asked it, and it has now been asked six times. [HON. MEMBERS: "Answer."] I have answered it—I answered it the first time. We are in favour of self-regulation, the Lord Chancellor is in favour of self-regulation, and this is yet another example of the right hon. Gentleman beginning a campaign with no purpose and no conviction.

Is my right hon. Friend aware of the anger felt by my constituents in the village of Tarleton? Under the local plan adopted when the council was Conservative controlled, and under the planning guidelines of the previous Tory Government, the village faces the prospect of the erection of several hundred executive homes in Coe lane. Does my right hon. Friend agree that planning guidelines should deal not only with the number of new homes required but with the mix of owner-occupied and rented properties and of low-cost and more expensive properties?

Yes, I do agree with that. My hon. Friend is absolutely right to point out that the previous Conservative Government carried on building on green-field sites, but now that the Conservatives are in Opposition, they tell us that they would never dream of doing such a thing. In fact, there is now more green belt than there was before 1 May and more brown-field site building. My hon. Friend is also right to say that we need the right mix of housing. That is precisely why, on coming to power, this Government released £900 million-worth of capital receipts—that money will allow local authorities to build homes for people again.

Does the Prime Minister have any worries about the fact that around 40 per cent. of Britain's media is in the hands of a single dominant proprietor?

There are rules that deal with that. Those rules have been properly set out and should be applied objectively by the relevant bodies. I assume that the right hon. Gentleman is referring to the Amendment in the Lords on Monday night. I do not believe that that is the right way to deal with the issue. I think that the right hon. Gentleman and the Conservative Opposition are wrong.

Will the Prime Minister tell us the right way to deal with the issue? Let me tell the Government what they are doing in their approach to it. They seem to say that, when it comes to competition, dealing with newspapers is the same as dealing with tins of beans. It manifestly is not. Vibrant media are vital to a healthy democracy. Opinion as diverse as the Confederation of British Industry, the ex-head of the Office of Fair Trading and many senior Labour Back Benchers believe that the Competition Bill is not strong enough to cope with the abuse of market power through media ownership. Is the Prime Minister prepared to consider any action to strengthen that Bill to cope with those fears? Will he assure us that he will be prepared to take whatever action is necessary to make sure that they are never realised?

The question proceeds on the assumption that the Bill does not strengthen existing powers. It does.

It does not.

With respect, the right hon. Gentleman is wrong. Let me explain the position. The Bill brings our law into line with that in the rest of Europe. It specifically provides that there cannot be abuse of a dominant market position. The Office of Fair Trading can investigate all sorts of things under that provision, including predatory pricing.

The Amendment in the House of Lords the other evening is wrong. It would result—this is why it is bizarre that it is supported by the Conservative party as well—in newspapers being prevented from competing against each other. They are perfectly entitled to compete against each other. If there is abuse of dominant market position, it can be investigated by the Office of Fair Trading. Under the Bill, there will be further powers to deal with that. I do not think that the amendment that was passed in the House of Lords is right in principle or the right way to deal with the problem.