Minister Dismisses Allegations of Declining to Call Maduro Removal Illegal to Appease US President.

Good morning. Before Christmas, Keir Starmer had planned to use the first week back after the holiday recess to highlight ministers' efforts to reduce the cost of living. He set out this argument recently in an article where he cited steps including plans to cut energy bills. Unfortunately, his cost of living PR blitz has been blown out of the news agenda by the former US president, and his entirely different approach to guaranteeing his voters get access to cheap energy.

No one in mainstream UK politics appears very keen on adopting the American method – which is likely good news for Norway.

But there is a heated discussion under way about what the UK government should be prepared to say about Trump’s decision to abduct the Venezuelan president, and replace him with someone expected to be more compliant with US demands, particularly in relation to the nation's petroleum sector.

The Prime Minister has declined to criticise the US action, and the administration has avoided questions about whether or not it viewed what happened as legal. Recently, European Union members apart from one nation issued a collective declaration which, while not overtly critical, did stress the importance of global rules, and by implication suggest Trump of ignoring it. It said:

The European Union urge calm and restraint by all parties, to avoid a worsening and to ensure a peaceful resolution to the situation.

The Union recalls that, under any conditions, the tenets of international law and the UN Charter must be upheld. Permanent members of the United Nations Security Council have a special duty to defend those standards, as a cornerstone of the international security architecture.

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

Absolutely not. UK ministers are and will remain in discussions with the US administration. And it’s for the Americans to explain the legal basis for the action that they’ve taken. And we’re also talking with key partners examining the legal aspect of this.

But recently, in an appearance on the BBC, Emily Thornberry (and a ex- shadow attorney general), said she was very concerned 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 sphere of influence.

Asked about Starmer refusing to say that Trump was in breach of international law, Thornberry said, because the PM was in government, he had to weigh up “multiple factors”. But she was in a separate situation because she was not a minister, she said. She added:

Ultimately there is no getting away from it. This is an unlawful move.

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

Here is the agenda for the day.

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

Morning: The Prime Minister is on a visit 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 queries in the Commons.

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