Government Official Dismisses Allegations of Refusing to Call Venezuelan Leader Extradition Unlawful to Appease Trump.

Welcome back. Before Christmas, Keir Starmer had planned to use the initial days back after the holiday recess to focus on ministers' actions to reduce the living expenses. He outlined this argument recently in an article where he cited steps including proposals to reduce energy bills. However, his economic PR blitz has been overshadowed of the headlines by Donald Trump, and his entirely different approach to ensuring his voters get access to cheap energy.

Not a single figure in British political life seems particularly eager on embracing the American method – which is likely good news for other nations.

But there is a heated discussion under way about what the UK government should be prepared to say about the American action to abduct the Venezuelan president, and install a successor with someone expected to be more compliant with US demands, particularly in regarding the country’s oil industry.

The Prime Minister has declined to censure the US action, and the administration has avoided questions about whether or not it considered what happened as legal. Recently, all EU states apart from Hungary issued a collective declaration which, while not overtly critical, did stress the value of international law, and by implication accuse Trump of ignoring it. It said:

EU members call for calm and restraint by all parties, to prevent escalation and to ensure a peaceful solution to the crisis.

The Union reiterates that, under all circumstances, the tenets of the rules-based order and the United Nations charter must be upheld. Permanent members of the United Nations Security Council have a special duty to defend those principles, as a cornerstone of the global security framework.

The migration minister, was doing an series of media appearances this morning and, when asked if Starmer was declining to say the Venezuelan leader's removal broke global statutes because he was worried of antagonising Trump, the minister replied:

Absolutely not. UK ministers are and will remain in conversations with the US administration. And it’s for the United States to explain 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 last night, 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 China’s Xi Jinping, that he could do what he wanted in his area of control.

Questioned about Starmer declining to say that Trump was in violation of international law, Thornberry said, because the PM was in government, he had to balance “multiple factors”. But she was in a separate situation because she was not a minister, she said. She added:

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

The Prime Minister may well want to hear what the justification is from the American government. I can state before us and say I literally think of anything that could be a valid excuse.

Here is the schedule for the day.

10am: John Swinney, gives a address in Glasgow. The Scottish Labour leader, and Scottish Tory leader, are also giving speeches, at 10.30am and lunchtime respectively. All the party heads are looking ahead to the Scottish parliament vote in May.

Morning: The Prime Minister is on a tour in Berkshire where he is due to make comments to the press.

11.30am: Downing Street holds a lobby briefing.

2.30pm: Shabana Mahmood, takes questions in the Commons.

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