there could be "grave repurcussions" and tensions ratchet up across the region. also tonight. you might think politics in northern ireland is dysfunctional now: it used to be far worse. we mark tomorrow's twentieth anniversary of the good friday agreement with one of its architects. a sad side story, your mother died in the days before. yeah, my mother took a heart attack on the sunday morning, just as i was involved in the talks and she died on the monday. so the removal was the tuesday and she was buried on the wednesday. also tonight, is there a direct link between police numbers and violent crime? this labour police commissioner says yes. this conservative politician says no. who's right? and this — for some, prefab homes, are fab homes. we hearfrom tenants in leeds on the prefabs they've called home for decades, but which could soon be demolished.

it seems to be that people think it's the norm that you want to buy your own home and own your own home. well, some people just can't do that. they're not in a position to do it. hello. there is an increasingly familiar pattern to tragic events like the reported chemical attack on the rebel—held syrian town of douma in eastern gouta on saturday. it seems likely that something terrible has occurred; most of us can guess the obvious culprit, but then counter—accusations and denials fly to the point that open—minded heads spin. on this occasion, russia says there's no evidence chemicals were used. and then the un security council meets, as you can see... it is doing it now and is still debating. what happened over the last few years... the syrian ambassador talking there. but nothing will happen there.

russia and america are in a new hostile phase of relationship, and russia can veto any motion. and so then its left with the us to decide on a response. and that is where we are now. president trump is poised to make a decision about whether to retaliate. he did so last year. assertions of the form, "those responsible must be made to pay" are being bandied around tonight, the immediate question is how? here's mark urban — his report contains distressing images. it has happened before. sarin nerve agent in 2013, just a short distance away from the latest strikes. and the same agent then reportedly used last year in a town called khan sheikhoun. there have been several uses of chlorine gas during the past year, and then this weekend's attack on douma, which the state department says has the appearance

of a nerve agent attack. the use of chemical weapons by the assad regime has been consistent over the last few years of the conflict. ever since the first such attack happened in 2013, it has been a tried and tested method used by the regime to empty areas of their original residents, so that they do not come back, which allows the regime to expand its military control of these areas rather easily. now, president trump is promising those responsible will pay, as meetings went on today at the white house of national security staff, working up the options that he will choose from. we will be making that decision very quickly, probably by the end of today, but we cannot allow atrocities like that. on the ground, russian troops have been in douma and their government says there is no evidence of chemical weapons use. russia has also warned

against attacking syria. on the international stage, russia has backed its ally in the un security council. that has happened before, too, of course, limiting the international response. translation: the governments of the united states, the uk and france, without any basis and without thinking of the consequences, are taking an aggressive line towards russia and syria and they are encouraging others to do the same. just over one year ago, assad's government was accused of using nerve agents in khan sheikhoun. president trump fired dozens of cruise missiles at a syrian base in response, so if that did not deter douma, would further attacks make any difference? another one—off attack or even a week of attacks on syria won't change this equation at all. the international community has no assets left on the ground. it has allowed russia,

iran and assad to destroy what opposition still existed. i think the options are really very few except for some symbolic act which will have very little impact. president trump has said recently that he would like to get american forces entirely out of syria, but now he is considering military options against the assad government. egged on by israel and saudi arabia, who know that america is key to blocking iran's ambitions in syria. israel has already hit syria with a strike on an air base today and there is a new national security adviser in the white house, who takes a strong line against the assad's government's principal backers, russia and iran. the arrival ofjohn bolton seals the growing trend in washington that is heading in the direction of containment of iran and that saudi arabia and israel are very much in line with. i expect that his arrival signals a shift in us policy towards taking

a harder stance towards iran. so this crisis might seem like another in the cycle of chemical weapons allegations, complete with its demonstrations of the deadlock at the un, but the region is moving into a new and more dangerous phase. mark is here. the un tonight, we heard a clip from the russians there but a lot has been said. there's more this, the same tenor we've had over the last month after skripal. indeed, you could argue it has been the approach since the shooting down of that airliner over eastern ukraine. we've had from the russian

ambassador tonight, there was no chemical attack, it was a false flag chemical attack by the rebels. shades of skripal, let's have an international investigation. a whole variety of approaches being deployed even within one session of the security council tonight. we know that trump is thinking about what he wants to do. britain and france, permanent members of the security council, will have to decide whether to follow, support, participate. where do you read that they are? interesting language in the debate, the french saying in a very straightforward way that they registered the seriousness of this and are ready to shoulder their responsibilities, i think a clear signal that they are prepared in principle tojoin military action. that puts the uk in a tricky position.

some saying that theresa may could do that under the so—called royal prerogative of authorising the use of force but others are less sure that position. hanging over it, this question, are the french, are they the americans' new chosen partners in this kind of thing? difficult for the uk government. where are we on the control of chemical weapons? it feels that it has slipped out... we have treaties, don't we? the obama red line was crossed and a feeling that in the use of poison against someone in north korea and against skripal, the use of chemical weapons and an erosion of the safeguards we negotiated in the early 905. thank you forjoining us. so what exactly do you do? if this attack turns out to be what we thought it is. nothing was done in 2013, and chemical weapons were used again. then trump did send in dozens of cruise missiles after chemical weapons were used, and that doesn't seem to have worked either. i am joined now from washington by the un

assistant secretary general panos moumtzis, who is the regional humanitarian coordinator for the syria crisis. good evening to you. have you got any idea what actually should be done if a country attacked some of his own people with chemical weapons? we clearly don't want to let that stand unpunished, right? clearly an investigation, as the secretary—general has said, must take place to find out what happened. as un humanitarian workers we can't verify that although there seems to be a lot of evidence coming out from health workers working inside. for us the biggest frustration is really that all of this has quite a dramatic impact on the humanitarian situation, on the protection of civilians, with the international community seems unable to bring any change so far. everyone has felt very powerless. can i ask what you think about the way the debate is conducted, in the security council and the media?

people are calling it information war, a disinformation war, we are trying to clarify what's going on and there are wildly, notjust likely different, accounts, being banded around, making it difficult. do you find you have your own suspicions about who has done what or do you keep an open mind? how do we deal with this? all i can say is what we see from the operations on the ground and at the moment civilians in syria are going through an extraordinary situation. since the beginning of the year, the eastern ghouta hostilities have resulted in tens of thousands, hundreds of thousand displaced. in idlib, 400,000 people displaced. over the last hundred days we've had over 700,000 internally displaced in syria on top of the 6.5 million displaced already there. an extraordinary situation where us as humanitarians are into an emergency mode to cope with the impact on the ground, on people's lights, women and children, while debates continue in new york and other capitals without really bring any impact. do you believe a chemical attack

occurred on saturday? a lot of evidence is coming out from health facilities and a medical team. clearly an investigation will need to be made for the united nations, for authority to be made with certainty what has taken place. people have complained about it, lots of pictures have come out, quite dramatic images. it must be investigated. it sounds like you do believe it. my next question, i know that humanitarian assistance is your thing. retaliation, punishment, in which you sent in cruise missiles, does that make it better or worse for the people of syria, punishing assad by bombing an airfield, perhaps that weakens him.

punishing him by bombing something elsewhere there are civilian casualties, does that work? do you support that, if it's a chemical attack? as a humanitarian worker what we would like to see taking place is a cessation of hostilities. some normalcy must come to the daily life in syria on multiple occasions. a country that has gone through this for years, we've seen an escalation of the hostilities and the military operations taking place which create total havoc on people's lives on the ground. isn't the most realistic way of ending hostilities for the west to get the heck out and let assad win because it looks like he's going to win and what we will do is prolong a war that will have

that outcome anyway. if it's going to have that outcome, better that it happens quickly, from your point of view? i think we need to look at history, from the moment is when we have regretted extreme action that is taking place. clearly what we need is a political solution that will bring together the country into a way forward. this is what the international immunity has failed to support so far. as humanitarians, we're a bit like the fire brigade, trying to stop a fire when the real cause of it is what needs to be addressed. the un is not functioning well enough to make very much difference in these situations. the united nations, the member states have the ability to bring together pressure and to be able to bring a solution which is not happening at the moment. we as humanitarian actors, we feel very dedicated and driven at the moment through multiple emergencies, really working 20 47 to bring life—saving assistance

to people on the ground. we are doing everything we can, also with limited funding and that is our biggest crisis. what needs to happen is a political solution to the crisis in syria. thank you so much. tomorrow is the 20th anniversary of the good friday agreement. it was two agreements in fact, one was between most of the parties within northern ireland, and one between the uk and irish governments. between them, they included a new constitution for the north, a new cooperative relationship between the republic and the uk and an historic recognition by everyone that only with the consent of the people of north could there be a united ireland. but the content barely seemed to matter as much as the change in mood. a generation of us had, for our entire conscious lifetime, never been able to associate

northern ireland with anything except anger, argument and violence. and then 20 years ago, there seemed to be peace. it didn't resolve everything — anger, argument, and occasional violence remained. moreover, the dup weren't there 20 years ago. only after a second deal, the st andrews agreement, did the dup get on board. and the system has now broken down. but still, a lot changed. one man who was at the heart of the process was the taoiseach, bertie ahern. he was there before, during and after the deal. and i met him earlier today in dublin to talk about events then and now. i started by asking him to cast his mind back 20 years, how he felt at the moment the deal was done. well, i think we were all relieved, because it had been one hell of a week. nobody had got too much sleep over the preceding four or five days and it really was the end of the cauchy asians that started in september of 1997 and went right up to it, we were at it nearly 3a days

week —— of the negotiations. the weeks up to it, there were a lot of difficulties, the issues were enormous, it is good for people to reflect back, a different generation of leaders and people. the big issues of the time were the constitutional position, the issue of decommissioning of arms, the reform of policing, which was a total change of the old royal ulster constabulary, and then there was the equality legislation, there were big ticket issues. a sad side story, your mother died in the days before. yeah, my mother took a heart attack on the sunday morning just as i was involved in the talks and she died on the monday. the removal was the tuesday and she was buried

on the wednesday. so i was literally going from dublin to belfast for the talks. like a lot of these things, when you think back, you wonder how you did that, but i was conscious, because you have been involved in the process for months and you realise there is a deadline, you realise everyone was working to that deadline and i had to work with that too. you had to get on with it and that was it. i'm interested in your view of the dup. a few years later, they became the dominant party on the unionist side in northern ireland, and they were not there. did you think of them as an irrelevance or what was your view of the dup?

i was sorry that they were not there. they had played a constructive enough engagement in the talks in 1991 and 1992. those talks broke up without really getting anywhere, but there were talks. then they were involved in the talks in 1997 and 1998, but they had pulled out at that stage as well. i would have preferred them in, because we always said that what we were trying to achieve was a comprehensive inclusive process. of course, they oppose the good friday agreement, they were under no side of the vote in may of 1998, but they were usually on the no side of everything in those and those days. there was a moment in 2004 when everyone wanted the dup to come in, and become the biggest party on the unionist side in northern ireland and you met with ian paisley and prayed with him in the irish embassy in london. tell me about that.

that was our first formal meeting. we had great difficulty in deciding where the meeting would be. finally, as a compromise, he suggested the irish embassy. ijoined in with his prayers. it is a very strange way for diplomacy to be conducted. it was just the two of us at the breakfast table and we had a very good breakfast and a very constructive discussion and at the end he said we will have a press conference. i wanted to have a joint press conference and he didn't and he said he would go out first and he said i will do another good sign of goodwill, i'll stand in front of the irish flag and make it look as if it's a mistake, which he did. he went out and in front of the media, he said he had breakfast with me and he said he had a very hard—boiled egg, because he said, he knew if there were hard—boiled eggs,

i could not have poisoned them. i said he never took the orange. we are celebrating marking the 20th anniversary of the good friday agreement, it was not really until the st andrews agreement, which frankly most people do not remember, that the dup came on board and you then had martin mcguiness and ian paisley in this triumvirate running northern ireland. isn't that really the moment when something really big has happened, these people you could never conceive of having worked with? there are two bets on this, perhaps one still to play out, but the good friday agreement, the huge success of the good friday agreement was that it ended the political violence, except for a few incidents by dissidents, which were very serious, like the omagh bombing, but that ended the violence. it wasn't until 2007 that we really got the political institutions to work fairly. —— fully. it wasn't until 2007 that we really

got the political institutions to work fully, and they worked very well until the last 15 months. i think that the last part is to get that sustainability going forward which i think will happen, but there's still a bit to play out. we well named the whole thing as the peace process because by its very meaning, process, it goes on. it's a journey. so, we're still on thatjourney. brexit‘s obviously going to complicate this whole task enormously, because you can't conceive of there being a physical border of any kind? no. and do you think the british, the united kingdom, can tolerate any kind of border down its middle between gb and northern ireland? well, i think theresa may has said that no british prime minister can ever do that. there never... let's be honest about it, there will never be a border, there's not going to be a physical border across ireland because if you try to put it there, you wouldn't have to wait for terrorism to take it down.

the people would physically pull it down, the ordinary people. it's possible the british will come up with a good scenario that doesn't require much of a physical border, just a bit of infrastructure near the border. is that going to work? is that going to be acceptable? i think, you know, we've had 20 years plus now ofjust absolutely free movement. yeah. i think the british government, brexit is a disaster for ireland. it's no good. i just wish it didn't happen but i accept that it did. the only resolution is that the customs union, if it's very close... for the whole of the uk, not for any special status for northern ireland?

for everybody. i'm not with the special status for northern ireland, there are problems about work. but if the customs union, let's say it equals a trade agreement. if that trade agreement is fairly close with what is presently there, i think, forget about ireland for a minute, i think that would be good for the uk's economy. here's the thing, the choice that might face ireland in the next 12 months. ireland has to either accept some british proposal with a teeny—weeny bit of infrastructure near the border, or ireland has to say no, we're holding out for britain in the custom union and with quite close alignment on rules. and we want the eu to back us on that and if the eu backs us on that, we're willing to say no transition, no nothing. britain, you will have the most horrendous of all brexits unless you give us that. that may happen, ireland will have to choose to play hard ball with the eu on its side. would you recommend ireland takes that approach? yeah, i mean hopefully that is not the scenario but i accept your analysis,

that could happen. i'm afraid the answer to that is we have to play hardball. of course one of the things the good friday agreement said was that if the majority population of northern ireland chose to remain part of a united ireland, that would be what happens. do you think brexit has made that more likely? it depends what the fallout of brexit is. but my own take on it is, to have a border poll, even though i was the one who put it into the good friday agreement, to have it in circumstances where there is not sustainability and workability of the whole institution would be the wrong time to do it.

numbers and violent crime, and this is for england and wales. first, let's look at the number of police officers. up to 2010, the number of them was rising — since then, numbers

have been falling. so remember that turning point: 2010. red is rising, green is falling. now to measure less serious violent crime, we tend to look at the office for national statistics crime survey — that shows a pretty consistent decline in less serious violent crime — both while police numbers were rising and while they were falling. but that survey is not great for the really serious stuff that has been of concern of late. you don't get murder data from surveys. so we'll look now at offences recorded by the police. gun crime, for example: it was in fairly consistent decline but picked up in the last few years. lagging the decline in police numbers. and then here is knife crime. this one only goes back to 2010. that has increased too.

you have seen some data, so let us now ask what drives serious violent crimes. labour police and crime commissioner for northumbria, vera baird, joins us from newcastle. with me in the studio is conservative member of the london assembly, shaun bailey, who in his previous life used to run youth clubs in west london. good evening to you both. i imagine you will both agree that police numbers are not the only thing, do you at least concede that? they aren't the main thing, but they are very important. do you agree that police numbers are something, even if not the main thing? i think that's correct, yeah. so we're sort of agreed on that. how important are the police numbers, then? it is completely baffling that police numbers were utterly ignored in the strategy. 21,000 officers have gone. my force uses to 7500 people,

it now has 5000, we have lost one third of our people and it is very clear that police numbers do matter. you live every day as the person who scrutinises the way that a police force works, with the importance of neighbourhood policing. when they are out in the community, they are helping, talking to kids at school, but overwhelmingly collecting intelligence and we've had some striking major trafficking arrests which if they hadn't been detained... these are the places where violent crime is on the increase according to amber rudd's documents, these could have multiplied, they would have continued, involved money—laundering and so on. listen, her own document says that police officers

being cut has stopped crying, it's called "serious violence, latest evidence." it says it isn't the main driver but is contributing. the bit that vera was stressing, the intelligence hide, —— side, that is the first bit that is cut when they are facing cuts. it isn't that simple, you talk about police, how they are gathering intelligence is that activity, there's no doubt that they've had to reduce that and make innovation, but that has caused them to change, forcing crime downwards. the situation in london especially, asking what police are going to do differently, crime has changed and the nature of the police has

changed. these are good words but activity requires numbers. you need some slack in the system so you can deploy people... activity changes, crime has changed and the police emphasis has changed. there's no doubt that some point, police numbers matter and there are fewer efficiencies than in the past but the idea of a direct correlation isn't correct. your graft showed that. we want to see how the police respond to the new world of more organised crime than we've ever had. let's talk about the other things, the stuff that went into the strategy, great emphasis on changes in the drugs market and how that's working. do you buy any of that? not a great deal,

it is about appeasing worries in crack cocaine, it hasn't gone up enormously. it cannot be responsible for all of this. there are many things we can look at in the report. the advocacy is £11 million on early intervention to stop people getting involved. yes, if that had started in 2010, when undoubtedly mr bailey was recommending to the cameron government, as he should, this generation of young people in serious criminal trouble, as the age of criminals gets less, it may not have been in it because it wouldn't have been carried out. let me say something stronger than that. there was early intervention, there were excellent youth services and they were slashed by the conservative government. the last word.

youth work isn't the answer, family work is the answer and the reason today is very powerful because it is the next step in preventing crime, linking up the new money being put in, 450 million extra pounds in policing, a lot of it looking and prevention. you can't arrest your way out of the issue. there are very few things you can arrest your way out of. it is the other things you should be arguing for. £920 million focusing on families and the bottom who need help. money going into this initiative in to making children more... stopping them going into sex gangs. the idea for police ending crime, it is about investing in all of our services across the piece. thank you forjoining us. in a suburb of leeds, a group of 70 prefabricated houses has begun to attract national attention.

they were built for miners in the 19505 — but now the company which now owns them, pemberstone, wants to knock them down to build more modern homes. there's little doubt that the houses need modernising, but lots of the families which live in them, many of whom are on low incomes, don't want to lose their homes. this issue isn't unique to leeds, or indeed, to prefab houses. but it is true that prefabricated houses have been pulled down all over the country. now, the twentieth century society has weighed in, saying these houses in leeds are among best examples left of this type of prefab home and should be kept. we went to talk to some of the residents. people that rent houses are sometimes looked at as second—class citizens. they're very expensive to keep warm. the idea that people want to tear these houses down makes me really depressed and upset.

i assumed that i'd be here for the rest of my life. these houses were built just after the war. they were put up quite quickly. these houses were built just after the war. they were put up quite quickly. the design of them, they are called airey houses because they were designed by edwin airey. he actually was from leeds. these are uprights, concrete uprights. there's about four inches, four by six. they go all the way up to the roof. these tiles are dropped on and they've got two hooks, they hooked over one another all the way across.

well we found out about this in september last year, through a leaflet through the door. it seemed to be that people thought it's the norm, that you would want to buy your own home and own your own home, well some people just cannot do that, they are not in a position to do it. they should be able to sign some sort of contract that says, that is your home and you make your home for as long as you want it. i can think back to when my mum was young, they got a house, they rented a house, it was a council house, they were told that they could have that for life. that doesn't happen now. i mean, we have lived here 13 years, but it doesn't give us any more rights than it did 13 years ago. we can be turfed out of here with a month's eviction notice. i do class us as just about managing. we both work, we both work, but some months, things are tight and you have to not do something. we lived here, approximately 60 years. we brought a family

of six children up. we have got numerous grandchildren, great—grandchildren and great—great—grandchildren. the original house was supplied by the coal board. the rent was paid via as wages, which was about five shillings a week. eight shillings, wasn't it? yeah. so... a full day's work down the pits was very, very difficult and it was very hard and strenuous. and it was shift work as well. i had a garden for my children and when i eat was young, i did not have a garden, it was just a street house. so, it were lovely when i first moved in, yeah. and the houses are very, very cold in winter. it is like living in the garage. concrete garage.

unless you have got the heating on fully. but, apart from that, you know, the houses are adequate, they are big enough. i feel like there has been an element of letting the state get into disrepair and look untidy and not necessarily be up to modern standards, to make it easierfor the properties to be sold. and i do think it was part of a long—term plan. i think they make really lovely family homes. they were built to be family homes. the rooms are a nice size, with a little bit of repair and care, these could be good homes for lots of families, for many years to come. that is what this estate was for, families like us. this is my house and i have lived here all my life. so, it is like nice community, people help you if you need it. we've got a field over there, we've got woods and then we have got like a mountain bike place as well and then if you go further down, we have got a rugby pitch and a football pitch to play. it's a bit sad, really, because we have grown

up here and this is basically all we know, as where we live. like, if we move places, we won't be able to see each other as much. they made a fortune out of my rent. which annoys me. when the house should have been ours. so, what do you do? this country is going to the dogs. the government that is in now should have made it so the rent, it cannot be as high as it is, there are people paying fortunes out for rent.

i mean, when i moved here, i thought this would be the last time i would ever have to move. i thought because this house was part of a whole estate, that was owned by a company, i assumed that i would be here for the rest of my life. yeah, i did as well. i thought i was going to be here for the rest of my life. i think everybody on the estate felt like that, actually. that this was going to be theirforever home. yeah. but apparently not. pemberstone, which owns that housing estate, said in a statement that all tenancy agreements will be honoured and it is unlikely that any residents will be expected to vacate their property and leave the estate, due to natural turnover.

good evening. on saturday, the temperature reached 19.4dc. today, the best of the weather was across western parts of wales in the far south—west of england and a far cry from what we had one year ago to this very day the sunshine, temperatures up around 24 degrees, significantly colder than that today across the south—east and most of england and eastern wales because we have had the cloud and misty weather. this rain has been developing more widely. everything rotating around this area of low pressure. that is going to dominate the weather for some pressure. that is going to dominate the weatherfor some time pressure. that is going to dominate the weather for some time to come. we have rain around through the night across england and wales. there may be some heavy bursts of rain, particularly across the of england. pretty mild out there.

those numbers are not going to rise a great deal. but the rain to begin. it is pushing its way further into northern ireland. although northwest scotla nd northern ireland. although northwest scotland should do well again. it might become drier for most of england and wales. we might well get some sunshine which could trigger a few potentially heavy thundery showers. this is where we will have some warmer conditions. not quite so warm and we have the sunshine today. but still area low pressure rotating towards spain, portugal. a lot of that wet weather will be spending oui’ that wet weather will be spending our way. that means we get an easterly wind. it's originating all

the way from the mediterranean. the wind is coming in off the north sea and that means parts of scotland and north—east england, the temperatures here will be pegged back by the sea temperature. really cold, grey, misty and murky. like the northern parts of the uk. further south, some sunshine. a mixture of temperatures across the uk. places like stornoway in the north—west of scotland, sunshine at times. so too, the southern counties of england. welcome to newsday. i'm sharanjit leyl in singapore. the headlines: president trump says he'll decide within 48 hours on what action to take against syria, after a suspected chemical attack on a rebel—held town. the fbi raids the offices of president trump's personal lawyer. mr trump calls it a disgrace.

i'm lebo diseko in london. also in the programme: the indian leopards who've adopted sugarcane fields as their home, putting them in direct conflict with local farmers. and we'll be looking at why increased snowfall in antarctica is actually a bad thing. live from our studios in singapore and london, this is bbc world news.