What services his Department provides to the residents of British overseas territories and Crown dependencies.

The overseas territories have a significant degree of internal self-governance. In general, the Government of each territory is responsible for the provision of services to their residents. The UK Government are responsible for the territories' defence, external relations and internal security. The Ministry of Justice is responsible for the UK's relationship with the Crown dependencies.

I am grateful for that response, but how can Britain call on other countries to uphold human rights and basic freedoms when the Chagos islanders were unlawfully deported from their homes 40 years ago and denied the right to return—a right restored three times by the courts over the past seven years and appealed against by the Minister's Department—and when Diego Garcia is being used by the US for extraordinary rendition?

I make no excuses for what happened in the 1960s and 1970s. That was a dreadful situation. As for the present position, we concluded on the basis of a feasibility study commissioned in 2002 that lasting resettlement would be precarious. As the hon. Gentleman knows, however, the issue of settlement is subject to legal proceedings. We have appealed on the ground that the previous judgment would cause problems for the way in which we run our relationships with other overseas territories, not just the British Indian Ocean territories.

Does the Minister accept that that was a deeply disappointing answer? The islanders were forcibly removed from their homeland, disgracefully and wrongfully, one of their islands has been taken over as an American base and possibly used for extraordinary rendition, and many of them have lived in poverty ever since their removal. Is it not time to give justice to the Chagos islanders? Is it not time to pay them appropriate compensation, and allow them to return to the homes from which they were so brutally removed?

I have already said that I do not excuse what happened previously: in that respect I agree with Andrew George. The matter is currently subject to a court process. Compensation has been paid—that has been legally agreed—and British citizenship given to all Chagos islanders. We await the outcome of the court hearing.

Can the Minister tell us when the agreement with the United States on the use of its bases on Chagos expires? Can she also tell us whether the renewal of that agreement requires the approval of Her Majesty's Government, or whether it can be effectively continued by the United States without such approval?

The agreement with the United States is continuing. At the moment there is no end date to that. It should mean that at the end of the period, if we no longer needed the British Indian Ocean territories, we would consider the rights of Mauritius.

Why does the Foreign Secretary not take account of the mood of the House in respect of the Chagos islanders? Overwhelmingly the House wants this wrong remedied, and remedied with some expedition and dispatch.

I understand the anger that hon. Members feel about what has happened, and I share their concern. The Government looked into whether it was possible to resettle the islanders. The feasibility study commissioned in 2002 said that lasting resettlement would be precarious and, if sponsored by the Government, would entail substantial open-ended contingent liability to the British taxpayer.

The Minister will be well aware that the economy of Tristan da Cunha depends on the export of crayfish. Regrettably, however, despite being a British overseas dependent territory, it is denied access to European Union markets. Can the Minister explain why that is, and tell us what steps she is taking to remedy the position?

It is true that the fish industry is extremely important to that territory, but I have had no recent discussions on the matter. It was not raised at the Overseas Territories Consultative Council. However, I will look into it further for the hon. Gentleman.