Blair 'dodgy' over Kelly naming

Lord Hutton has yet to announce when he will report

The David Kelly affair has shown how "desperately dodgy" Tony Blair's position has become, Conservative leader Michael Howard has said.

In fiery exchanges at prime minister's questions, the Tory leader accused Mr Blair of failing to give a straight answer over his treatment of Dr Kelly.

But Mr Blair said he stood "by all" he said on the issue.

And he argued Mr Howard should apologise if the Hutton inquiry did not bear out his criticisms.

'Opportunism'

For the second week running, Mr Howard repeatedly pressed Mr Blair over his denial that he had authorised the naming of Dr Kelly as the suspected source for the BBC's Iraq weapons story.

He asked whether Mr Blair stood by the comments, made to journalists travelling with the prime minister in the Far East days after Dr Kelly's apparent suicide last year.

And claiming Mr Blair was refusing to answer, he said: "Isn't it the case that this afternoon, the whole country has seen just how desperately dodgy this prime minister's position has become."

Countering that criticism, Mr Blair accused the Tories of "total opportunism" and urged people to wait for Lord Hutton's report.

"I stand by all that I have said in relation to this issue," he went on.

Apology demand

Mr Blair predicted that Mr Howard would call for his resignation whatever Lord Hutton's findings.

"Since he has raised the issue of my integrity, effectively accusing me of telling lies, I hope that if this report when it comes out does not find these claims proven he will have the decency to apologise," he added.

Mr Blair was also asked by Tory defence spokesman Julian Lewis about his official spokesman's description of Dr Kelly as a "Walter Mitty" character.

The prime minister said that too would be dealt with by Lord Hutton, but stressed that his spokesman, Tom Kelly, had "unreservedly apologised" for the comment.

Labour MP George Foulkes also said that concern for Dr Kelly's family should not prevent legitimate questions being asked about the "propriety" of the scientist's contacts with journalists.