and a boost for welsh hopes for euro 2020, with a 2—0 win over azerbaijan. hello, and welcome to our look ahead to what the the papers will be bringing us tomorrow. with me are nigel nelson, the political editor at the sunday mirror and sunday people, and the political commentator, jo phillips, who was a press secretary for the liberal democrats. many of tomorrow's front pages are already in. like many of the papers, the observer leads on the bbc‘s interview with prince andrew,

and his comments that he couldn't have had sex with an underage teenager because he was ‘at home after a pizza party with his daughter'. the mirror focuses on the prince's denial of a claim from virginia roberts that he was ‘sweating profusely‘, saying this couldn‘t be true because he ‘didn‘t sweat‘ at that period in his life. the mail on sunday also leads with that story, saying the prince didn‘t express any remorse at his association with the paedophile jeffrey epstein. meanwhile, the front page of the sunday express features a story about pensions, saying that labour plans to nationalise some utilities could risk private pensions. and the telegraph says that every conservative parliamentary candidate has pledged to vote for borisjohnson‘s brexit deal if he gets a majority of seats in the upcoming election. let‘s start off with the observer

this evening, the duke of york claimed he was, ok, first off, before we look at details like that. what was your initial reaction?” was appalled. just watching it, i can‘t understand who would suggest he would actually go and do an interview like that, and had he chosen to do the interview, then he certainly wasn‘t prepared for it. it felt like he had come to clear the airand felt like he had come to clear the air and adjust muddied waters all the way through. i think nearly all the way through. i think nearly all the papers are unanimous in condemning it, for complete lack of empathy and this sense of disconnection. it was bizarre, rambling, contradictory, but it was all about him. and there isjust no recognition of the fact that jeffrey epstein wasa recognition of the fact that jeffrey epstein was a convicted sex

offender, and there were victims. on that note, let‘s turn to the mail on sunday because they do concentrate on that aspect that many people were waiting for, not one word of remorse. it is bizarre, and also this whole thing about his friendship with epstein who incidentally was apparently invited to princess beatrice's 18th birthday party, he stayed with epstein in new york after epstein had been in prison, been convicted of sexual offences. prince andrew claimed that he did it out of on a. he was an honourable man, they have been friends for a long time and he didn't want to shun him, and he went to america and then told him that he couldn't be friends with him anymore. let me play devil's advocate here. he has said that apart from staying with, staying in jeffrey epstein‘s apartment, he has done nothing wrong. so what should

he be remorsefulfor? ok, the one thing i think he should be remorsefulfor is thing i think he should be remorseful for is the one thing we now know happened to those young women at the home ofjeffrey epstein. that is not to say that prince andrew was involved but he is caught up in this whole thing with a friend that he doesn‘t regret having a friendship with. this man abused a succession of young women, he was a paedophile, he wrecked their lives, he caused a great deal of misery, and that alone, just as a human being, you should be remorsefulfor, and you should regret what happened to those women. and let's turn to the sunday mirror, this is our final paper, looking at the story. no sweat, no regret. no regret, ithink it was expressed that he didn‘t regret the friendship. it came with benefits, he said that friendship with epstein was used. it is what

cost? who on earth advised him to do this? and if that advice was taken or whether he did it on his own, why on earth wasn't he prepared for it? because the first thing you would do is say sorry. what sort of impression do you think american viewers would be having of this? because this is essentially an american case, it has nothing to do with prince andrew, of course. he denied all allegations, but american viewers... i think it is quite interesting, the american reaction. they are quite in awe of the royal family, they are going to be mystified how a prince of the realm ended up being a friend ofjeffrey epstein. ok, we have drawn the line under that story for this evening. let‘s turn to the sunday telegraph. every tory candidate signs brexit deal pledge. this is borisjohnson? borisjohnson, his first interview of the election campaign, with the

paper that he used to write for. hardly big news, is it? and got paid a great deal of money for. and got sacked by them, i think! a great deal of money for. and got sacked by them, ithink! his a great deal of money for. and got sacked by them, i think! his first newspaper interview, this isn't have i got news for you. he has told the paper that every single conservative candidate has signed a pledge, or has pledged personally, it feels like it ought to be signed in blood, doesn't it? that they will vote his brexit deal through the house of commons if he wins a majority? it's appalling. it's arrogant, it's bizarre, it makes you think that... nigel and they were just talking about the selection. it is so extreme. if you are not going to follow the lead, you are really not

wanted. after what we've witnessed in parliament and even now the pacts that are going on, do these pledges mean anything? it will be interesting to see if they do. and the idea you actually make people before they are even elect it, to sign up to a pledge like this is extraordinary. the other thing about it is it takes away the mp‘s link with their constituents. i know a lot of mps who in fact would have voted the way their constituents wa nted voted the way their constituents wanted them to. now, what are you saying that to the electorate? don‘t mind you, we have got these mps, just vote for them. brexit will get done, whatever kind of brexit it might be stopping there may well be a lot of people who are saying, hang on, we‘re not sure we like that deal. and mp should be free to reflect that opinion. they are not delegates, they are representatives, but even so the constituency should

have a chance of actually telling them what they want to happen stop lou i think it is very offensive to the electorate. it‘s a tater ship! —— it‘s a dictatorship! the electorate. it‘s a tater ship! -- it's a dictatorship! what do you think of all of the pacts that are going on? is that an insult to the british public! you are being told how to vote? yes you are, effectively. if you are in its purest sense, but in all the time we have had the first past the post syste m have had the first past the post system which does not truly represent, it's crazy that there is only one green mp when so many people vote green. brexit or whatever they were before, i've lost track, a lot of people voted for them and they didn't have one mp. first past the post, you have two increasingly look at how you can use your vote most effectively, and i think the selection, more than any

other that i can never remember it so other that i can never remember it so polarised because of brexit but it is also polarised because they don't think there has ever been a time with the leaders of the two main parties have been so unpopular and even though they are ahead in the polls, borisjohnson is still very unpopular. not as much as jeremy corbyn. but in a sense, it is the lesser of two evils, and i think people are not as tribal as they used to be. yes, brexit has changed the rules, basically. so more people, nine out of ten people associate themselves with one side of the brexit argument, not with a political party. let's go back to your paper, here nigel. this is a fantastic story. free dental checks, says corbin. fantastic if it happens. your teeth, the nhs, these are rings that people are so passionate about. and i can get

checked out as well. the kids are one of the reasons in fact for doing this policy. what jeremy one of the reasons in fact for doing this policy. whatjeremy corbyn says is that 40% of children in england have not seen a dentist in the last year. that‘s 50% of adults haven‘t either, and one of the explanations from the british dental association is that if the parents don‘t go, often they don‘t then take the children stopping the children get it for free, if the parents are put off by the £22 charge, then children don‘t get dental checks either. and then you get the awful situation of 100 children a day have rotten teeth taken out in hospital. so you got extra cost going through the system. it is free for children under 18, it's very forward pregnant women and new mothers, so it's slightly disingenuous, although then there will be evidence to suggest that parents are worried about the cost to them so they don't go, they get

out of the habit of it. but there also a point that as a you do things... two-thirds of people go to the dentist in scotland and only half go to the dentist down here. there is also a huge shortage of nhs dentist. even if you have got a dentist. even if you have got a dentist that wasn't a private dentist, they are rarer than hen's teeth. and one of the reason for thatis teeth. and one of the reason for that is that the tories have been cutting the money back for the dentist while increasing the charges. how much would this policy cost? £450 million. think it's fair to make the point, dentists are health professionals, not tax collectors. so it's not like it's lining the pockets of. absolutely. and the one thing about the £450 million, you recoup all of it in cancer checks, the people who turn

up cancer checks, the people who turn up with toothache, you catch them earlier, there are a lot of benefits along the way. 's turn to the sunday times, and the story at the bottom of the front page revealed the russia report. the russian report that everybody has been calling to be published. this is an exclusive for the sunday times. it's hard to tell how much they've only seen. you probably know more if they've seen the whole thing, but this is a report by the cross—party intelligence and security committee and there have been lots of calls for it to be published before the election, and apparently according to the sunday times, russian interference may have had an impact on the brexit referendum. if it's unquantifiable, published a report.

we have always suspected that the referendum was why that hasn‘t been published. we do know that the russians actually interfere with the referendum stopping the view has been that although they did it didn‘t actually make any difference. this takes it slightly further, by saying it is unquantifiable by saying it is unquantifiable by saying it is unquantifiable by saying it did make a different, we just don‘t know how much. i think that what you need to do to understand this is either report in full, but of course if it turns out that russian interference may have changed the result, then this whole election is a sham anyway, so it‘s pointless actually having at. that has or has been the suspicion, that is the key reason why they don‘t wa nt is the key reason why they don‘t want it published. i suppose it raises questions about the upcoming general election, then? that's my point. what are we‘re having the general election for? it‘s all about getting brexit done. if it turns out the original result was wrong, then we shouldn‘t be having brexit. and i‘m not saying any of those things

are true, i‘m just saying that we need to see the report to know. the pressure has been huge. secured by m16, there are no secrets about it, and the argument that the government uses, we have to go through it and doublecheck it, but the chair of the committee, he thinks it should be published. you can‘t say what is and it himself because he is bound by the official secrets act copy of the intelligence agencies don‘t mind either, why are we keeping it secret? yeah, exactly! thank you very much indeed, thank you for watching. that‘s it for the papers tonight. don‘t forget you can see the front pages of the papers online on the bbc news website. it‘s all there for you seven days a week at bbc.co.uk/papers. and if you miss the programme any evening you can watch it later on bbc iplayer. a big thank you to my

guests this evening, nigel and jo. and from all of us, goodnight. next on bbc news it‘s the film review. hello, and a very warm welcome to the film review on bbc news. to take us through this week‘s cinema releases, as ever, is mark kermode. hi, mark. what have you been watching? i think we have something for everyone. we have le mans 66, which stars christian bale and matt damon. we have the amazing johnathan doc,

which is a documentary that