Tony Blair faced criticism from the Opposition and his own backbenches today after skipping a rare parliamentary debate about his strategy in Iraq and the future of the Middle East.

Instead of attending the first debate on Iraq and the wider region on the Government's time in more than three years, the Prime Minister gave a short address on public service reform to the Confederation of British Industry, at a conference only ten minutes from Westminster.

William Hague, the Shadow Foreign Secretary, said it was unacceptable that Mr Blair chose to "skulk out of this chamber" at the end of Prime Minister's Questions as the debate got underway.

He rejected Mr Blair's promise to speak to the Commons when the current British attempt to prepare the city of Basra for Iraqi control was closer to completion.

"Where would this House have been in the Second World War if Winston Churchill had only come along when a turning point was in prospect or had been reached?" He asked. "It is sad that he prefers the mentality of the bunker to the open thinking of debate."

David Cameron, the Conservative leader, remained in the House for the debate but did not speak. Ironically enough, Mr Cameron was criticised in December for skipping the annual conference of the CBI to make a trip to Iraq.

Mr Blair's place was taken by Margaret Beckett, the Foreign Secretary, and Downing Street said today that it was not the Prime Minister's custom to attend what are known as "adjournment debates" in which no substantive motion is put before the Commons.

Nonetheless, the debate came at a critical time, with British troops preparing to hand over Basra, the last main province under UK control to Iraqi authorities, and in the days after President George Bush decided to send an extra 21,500 American soldiers to try and halt the endemic sectarian violence in Baghdad.

Since the US President announced the so-called "surge" of forces to restore order to the Iraqi capital and the western province of Anbar, the White House has also launched a parallel diplomatic effort, despatching the Secretary of State, Condoleezza Rice, to organise a meeting between the Palestinian and Israeli leaders in the coming weeks.

Sir Menzies Campbell, the leader of the Liberal Democrats, used the occasion of today's debate to make his party the first to demand a timetable of withdrawal for British troops. Sir Menzies said UK forces should begin pulling out of Iraq in May and the last should leave by the end of October.

He presented the idea during Prime Minister's Questions and criticised Mr Blair for not staying to properly discuss the Government's plans for Iraq.

"I’m actually debating the issue with you now," said the Prime Minister, after dismissing Sir Menzies' plan as deeply irresponsible and likely to "send the most disastrous signal to the people we are fighting in Iraq".

During the debate, Mrs Beckett said that the Government supported Mr Bush's goal of handing over all 18 Iraqi provinces to local control by November and said that Operation Sinbad, the British military operation intended to bring a lasting stability to the province of Basra, should be over in the coming months.

"We remain confident that at some point this spring we will be able to recommend that Basra province too is ready for this process of transition," she said, before reminding MPs that the Government rejected all ideas of "a specific date, a specific deadline or specific timeline" for withdrawal.

Mr Hague renewed Conservative calls for a Privy Council inquiry into the conduct of the war to begin in 2007 and sharply criticised the Government's apparently unquestioning support of both the Iraq Study Group's recommendations for Iraq and Mr Bush's later, different plans.

"The fact is that Ministers not only welcomed the Baker Hamilton [ISG] report they also went on to welcome the different strategy announced by President Bush this month even though it differed markedly from the Baker Hamilton approach," he said.

"I say as a firm advocate of the transatlantic alliance that saying we approve of one thing when thinking is going one way in December... and then saying we approve of something quite different when the thinking in Washington changes in January, does no favours for the transatlantic relationship, because it gives the impression we will say yes to anything the White House wants to do."

Times Recommends

• Catalogue of failings ‘leaves others at risk’
• Tourists told to stay away amid Venice floods
• Google generation has no need for rote learning