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

Welcome back. Before Christmas, the Labour leader had planned to use the initial days back after the parliamentary break to highlight ministers' actions to bring down the cost of living. He outlined this case recently in a piece where he cited measures including proposals to reduce utility costs. However, Starmer’s economic PR blitz has been overshadowed of the news agenda by the former US president, and his entirely different strategy to guaranteeing supporters receive cheap energy.

Not a single figure in mainstream UK politics appears particularly eager on adopting the American method – which is probably good news for other nations.

But there is a heated discussion ongoing about what the UK government should be willing to say about the American action to abduct the Venezuelan president, and replace him with someone expected to be more compliant with US demands, especially in relation to the nation's petroleum sector.

Keir Starmer has declined to censure the American intervention, and the government has dodged questions about whether or not it considered what happened as lawful. Last night, European Union members except one nation issued a joint statement which, while not overtly critical, did stress the importance of global rules, and by inference suggest Trump of ignoring it. It said:

EU members call for restraint and restraint by all parties, to avoid a worsening and to ensure a peaceful resolution to the crisis.

The EU recalls that, under all circumstances, the tenets of international law and the UN Charter must be upheld. Members of the United Nations Security Council have a special duty to defend those principles, as a cornerstone of the global security framework.

Mike Tapp, was doing an series of media appearances this morning and, when asked if Starmer was declining to say the Maduro extradition violated international law because he was afraid of antagonising Trump, the minister replied:

Not at all. The British government is, and will, be in conversations with the US administration. And it’s for the Americans to explain the legal basis for the steps that they’ve taken. And we’re also consulting with key partners 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 the Russian leader 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 violation of global rules, she said, because the PM was in government, he had to balance “multiple factors”. But she was in a different position because she was not a minister, she said. She went on:

Ultimately there is no getting away from it. This is not a legal action.

[Starmer] may well want to hear what the reasoning is from the American government. I can state before everyone and say I cannot think of anything that could be a proper justification.

Here is the schedule for the day.

10am: John Swinney, gives a speech in Glasgow. The Scottish opposition leader, and Scottish Tory leader, are also giving speeches, at 10.30am and 1pm in turn. All the leaders are looking ahead to the Scottish parliament vote in May.

Morning: Keir Starmer is on a tour in Berkshire where he is scheduled to speak to the media.

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

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

After 3.30pm: Yvette Cooper, is anticipated to give a update to MPs about Venezuela.