Minister Dismisses Claims of Declining to Call Venezuelan Leader Extradition Illegal to Appease US President.

Good morning. Prior to the holidays, Keir Starmer had planned to use the first week back after the parliamentary break to focus on ministers' efforts to bring down the living expenses. He set out this argument recently in a piece where he cited measures including plans to reduce energy bills. Unfortunately, his cost of living media push has been overshadowed of the headlines by Donald Trump, and his entirely different approach to guaranteeing supporters get access to affordable power.

Not a single figure in mainstream UK politics appears very keen on embracing the Trump approach – which is probably a positive development for other nations.

But there is a heated discussion under way about what the UK government should be willing to say about the American action to abduct Nicolás Maduro, and replace him with someone expected to be more cooperative with US demands, especially in relation to the country’s oil industry.

Keir Starmer has refused to censure the US action, and the administration has avoided questions about whether or not it considered what happened as legal. Recently, European Union members apart from Hungary issued a collective declaration which, while not overtly critical, did stress the value of global rules, and by implication suggest Trump of disregarding it. It said:

The European Union urge calm and restraint by all parties, to prevent escalation and to secure a peaceful solution to the situation.

The EU recalls that, under any conditions, the principles of international law and the UN Charter must be upheld. Permanent members of the United Nations Security Council have a particular responsibility to uphold those standards, as a pillar of the global security framework.

Mike Tapp, was conducting an series of media appearances this morning and, when asked if Starmer was refusing to say the Venezuelan leader's removal broke international law because he was afraid of upsetting Trump, the minister replied:

Not at all. The British government are and will remain in conversations with the US administration. And it’s for the Americans to lay out the juridical rationale for the steps that they’ve undertaken. And we’re also talking with close allies examining the legal aspect of this.

But recently, in an interview on the BBC, the chair of the Commons foreign affairs committee (and a ex- shadow attorney general), said she was deeply worried about the way Trump seems to think, like Russia’s Vladimir Putin and the Chinese president, that he could do what he wanted in his sphere of influence.

Asked about Starmer refusing to say that Trump was in breach of global rules, Thornberry said, because the PM was in government, he had to balance “a number of considerations”. But she was in a separate situation because she was not a minister, she said. She added:

Ultimately there is no escaping the fact. This is not a legal action.

The Prime Minister may well want to hear what the reasoning is from the US administration. I can get in front of everyone and say I literally think of anything that could be a proper justification.

Here is the agenda for the day.

10am: The Scottish first minister, gives a address in Glasgow. The Scottish opposition leader, and Scottish Conservative leader, are also giving speeches, at mid-morning and lunchtime respectively. All the leaders are looking ahead to the Scottish parliament vote in May.

Morning: Keir Starmer is on a visit in Berkshire where he is due to make comments to the media.

11.30am: The Prime Minister's office holds a lobby briefing.

2.30pm: The home secretary, takes questions in the Commons.

After 3.30pm: Yvette Cooper, is expected to give a statement to MPs about the ongoing situation.