We saw a new side of Tony Blair yesterday. In place of the pretty straight kind of guy we have come to know and love, we met instead a cold and unfeeling Tony Blair, a man unwilling to express regret about the events leading up to the death of David Kelly, or to admit that his actions might in any way have contributed to the tragedy.

It has become almost a ritual at the Hutton inquiry for witnesses to be asked, before they stand down, whether they have anything to say about Dr Kelly himself or the way he died. Many choose to express their sadness, or to offer condolences — as Geoff Hoon and Gavyn Davies did this week.

Mr Blair did neither. Was there anything he wished to say about the circumstances surrounding Dr Kelly’s death? “No, I don’t think there is,” came the bleak reply. Would he care to add anything further? “No.”

And then, after two hours and 20 minutes, he was gone, leaving behind the impression of a man with more important things on his mind, a determined, businesslike Prime Minister, with an unexpected streak of ruthlessness.

This was, nevertheless, a consummate performance by the master of presentation. From the moment he strode into Court 73, haircut immaculate, suntan expensive, glasses serious, he commanded and received respect. Too much, perhaps. For every “My Lord” that he uttered in deference to Lord Hutton, there was a string of “Prime Ministers” from James Dingemans, QC, and an absence of the probing questions that have elicited so many startling admissions in the course of this inquiry.

It was, perhaps, unfortunate that Mr Dingemans should choose not to observe the court procedure of asking the witness his name and profession at the outset. “I do not think we need an introduction,” he said unctuously, eliciting a self-deprecating grin in return.

Two themes ran through Mr Blair’s evidence — first, as Prime Minister, he took full responsibility for all the key decisions that had been made, from the way the Iraq dossier had been compiled, to the pursuit of the BBC, and the process that led to the identification of Dr Kelly. Second, he was insistent throughout that “the right thing” should be done; right, that is, in terms of protecting the good name and reputation of the Government.

Not, of course, that he had been able to attend to every last detail — there was, after all, as he reminded Mr Dingemans on several occasions, a country to be run — foreign visitors to be met, factories to be opened, that kind of thing. This meant that he had been unaware of several minor developments, such as the decision by the Ministry of Defence to help newspapers to identify Dr Kelly, or the leaking of his name by Downing Street’s press officer, Tom Kelly. Not that he criticised them for it. “In fairness to the MoD press people, it was difficult for them,” he said. In any event “it was fairly obvious that the name was going to come out”.

Helping that process, while at the same time “playing it by the book,” in Mr Blair’s words, was, it appeared, very “difficult”. Difficult, not because it meant exposing individuals to the glare of publicity, but because Downing Street had to “make absolutely sure that no one could question their actions”.

It was clear that in this endeavour some people were more helpful than others. Advisers such as Sir Kevin Tebbitt of the MoD, and Sir David Omand of the Cabinet Office were in constant attendance. Alastair Campbell, of course, was critical. Indeed his importance was such that at one point it even eclipsed the Prime Minister’s. When Andrew Gilligan of the BBC reported that Downing Street had “sexed up” the Iraq dossier, Mr Blair said it was so serious an allegation that, if true, he would have had to resign.

But when Mr Gilligan went on to claim, in the Mail on Sunday, that Mr Campbell had been personally involved, then the story was “no longer a small item”. Indeed, it attached a “booster rocket” to the whole affair.

Other names rated less highly. Take the curious incident of Geoff Hoon, for instance. Mr Hoon is the Defence Secretary, the department that was supposed to be in charge of the Kelly affair. But he was not mentioned once in the entire course of Mr Blair’s evidence. And that was the curious incident.

Or take the foreign affairs committee. Mr Blair made it perfectly clear that he had no regard for it. They were “not the right people” to inquire into the BBC’s allegations, they were riven by party differences, and he was against allowing Downing Street officials to appear before them.

And yet, when it came to revealing Dr Kelly’s identity, it was suddenly paramount that the committee should be furnished with all the details it required. “I was very concerned that we could be accused of misleading them or keeping information from them,” he said, so that “no one could say afterwards . . . ‘you people were trying to cover up or conceal from a House of Commons committee’.”

Observers of Mr Blair, a barrister who has not appeared in court for 20 years, will be relieved to learn that he has suddenly acquired so deep a respect for the democratic procedures of the House of Commons. It was just a pity that when it came to “playing it by the book”, he was not able to display a similar concern for the late Dr Kelly.

Blair casts himself as EU president candidate

Speaking on French TV, Tony Blair sang the praises of the EU and sketched his agenda for its future, all in fluent French

Multimedia

• The Blair years: video, pictures and analysis

• Interactive Blair Timeline

• BlairTube

Background

• The past decade a disaster?

• All about Iraq? Don’t you believe it

• I’ll give Blair six and a half out of ten

Multimedia

• Blair fashion gallery

• Cherie Blair picture gallery

• Brookes on Blair

Explore UK News

• Crime News

• Education News

• Health News

• Science News

• Scotland News

Times Recommends

• Anne Darwin's performance of a lifetime
• Renaissance for canals as new boaters come aboard
• Case study: forced to marry a cousin at 17