asked the Prime Minister if he will now make a statement on the discussions with officials of Mr. Smith's Government.

The informal talks with officials of the illegal régime are continuing and I have, as yet, no statement to make.

I am much more concerned about the results of these talks than about the timing, but can the Prime Minister say whether he expects to be able to make a statement on the conclusion of the talks before the long Recess?

No, Sir. As the hon. Gentleman says, the important matter is the right conclusion and one which is acceptable to the House as being fully in accordance with the six principles and the other conditions which have been laid down. I think that I should probably be wrong in trying to forecast the time. We want to get the right result more than, perhaps, a quick result.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. May we know how it is possible for this Question with its reference to "Mr. Smith's Government" to have got past the Table Office?

That is something I shall have to look into.

Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind that many of us on this side of the House regard these negotiations with grave concern and we think that no good can possibly come out of having anything to do with this treacherous régime?

In my opening Answer, I did not use the word "Government", of course; I used the term "illegal régime". In our view, these talks, which are talks, not negotiations, as my hon. Friend calls them——

What is the difference?

They are talks to discover whether there is a basis for negotiations. They are talks to see whether there is a basis for negotiation, on what terms, and with whom.

We have always urged that these talks should be carried on on a confidential basis and, naturally, we wish them well; but I think that the House would like to feel that, before it rises for the Summer Recess, it might be possible for the Prime Minister at least to give some indication of how the talks are proceeding.

I think that the whole House would like to feel that, before that time, we shall have an outcome and a satisfactory outcome; but this cannot be guaranteed. I do not want to prejudice them, but I think that the House would be entitled to a statement either on the outcome or to say why it is not possible to reach an outcome by that time.

Will my right hon. Friend go a little further than that? While all of us on this side of the House at least are extremely gratified to hear of his insistence, so strongly made, on the six principles, will my right hon. Friend give an undertaking that, before these unofficial talks are made official in any way, there will be a chance for the House to debate the whole proposition which the Government propose to make in the official talks themselves?

The statement that I made about the six principles I have made on every occasion when we have discussed the matter. I made it clear at the beginning when these talks began. Certainly, before there were any question of moving from informal and exploratory talks to anything which might be negotiations, by which time we should know with whom they would be, there would be a statement in the House. Whether it would then be debatable is, of course, a matter for discussion through the usual channels and announcement by my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House.

As a contribution to the success of these talks, which I am sure we all desire, will the Prime Minister consider urging his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations to moderate the language in which he habitually refers to the elected régime in Rhodesia?

The hon. and gallant Gentleman is quite wrong. This is not an elected régime. It is an illegal régime. It was an elected Government; it was the legal Government. It committed an illegal act and was dismissed on the authority of Her Majesty the Queen. I should have thought that hon. Members opposite would at least have understood the constitutional position involved.