Minister Dismisses Claims of Declining to Label Maduro Extradition Illegal to Placate US President.

Good morning. Prior to the holidays, the Labour leader had intended to use the initial days back after the parliamentary break to focus on ministers' efforts to bring down the cost of living. He set out this case yesterday in a piece where he referenced steps including plans to cut utility costs. Unfortunately, Starmer’s cost of living media push has been overshadowed of the news agenda by the former US president, and his entirely different approach to ensuring supporters receive affordable power.

Not a single figure in mainstream UK politics seems very keen on adopting the American method – which is likely good news for Norway.

But there is an intense debate under way about what the UK government should be willing to say about Trump’s decision to extradite 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 criticise the American intervention, and the government has avoided questions about whether or not it viewed what happened as legal. Recently, European Union members except one nation issued a joint statement which, while not explicitly condemning, did emphasise the importance of international law, and by implication accuse Trump of ignoring it. It said:

The European Union urge calm and caution by all actors, to avoid escalation and to ensure a peaceful resolution to the crisis.

The Union recalls that, under any conditions, the tenets of the rules-based order and the United Nations charter must be respected. Members of the United Nations Security Council have a special duty to uphold those standards, as a cornerstone of the global security framework.

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

Not at all. The British government is, and will, be in discussions with the US administration. And it’s for the Americans to lay out the legal basis for the action that they’ve undertaken. And we’re also consulting with close allies examining the legal aspect of this.

But last night, in an appearance on the BBC, the chair of the Commons foreign affairs committee (and a ex- shadow attorney general), said she was very concerned 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 area of control.

Questioned about Starmer declining to say that Trump was in breach of international law, she 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 government member, she said. She went on:

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

The Prime Minister may well wish to hear what the justification is from the American government. I can state before us and say I cannot think of anything that could be a proper justification.

Here is the agenda for the day.

10am: John Swinney, gives a speech in Glasgow. The Scottish Labour leader, and Scottish Conservative leader, are also giving speeches, at 10.30am and lunchtime in turn. All the party heads are looking ahead to the Holyrood elections in May.

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

11.30am: Downing Street holds a lobby briefing.

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

After 3.30pm: The foreign secretary, is expected to give a statement to MPs about the ongoing situation.