MPs have voted against a call for a full inquiry into the government's handling of the Iraq war and its aftermath.
Following a heated debate on Tuesday evening, they voted by 298 to 273 against the move, a majority of 25 in favour of the government's position with 12 Labour backbenchers rebelling.
A second vote to adopt the government's position was carried by 294 votes to 264, a majority of 30.
Earlier, Welsh nationalist Adam Price had opened the debate by arguing that decision was about "a breakdown in the very system of governing".
The Plaid Cymru MP spoke of the "monumental consequences" of the Iraq war, saying it was "the worst foreign policy disaster certainly since Suez, possibly since Munich".
"It's about a breakdown in the very system of governing, a fault line in our very constitution which only we as parliamentarians can fix, and fix it we must," he said.
He spoke of the need to rebalance the power between parliament and the executive, and the haemorrhaging of trust in domestic politics.
Price said the inquiry - conducted by a Commons select committee - should answer three questions, starting with "how the government could take us to war on claims that turned out to be false".
He also called for it to find out when the decision to go to war was made, and "why the planning and conduct of the occupation has been so disastrous".
"There are two Iraqs - the Iraq of George Bush and the prime minister where things are going to plan and getting better all the time, and the real Iraq of murder and mayhem, whose future is uncertain," he added.
"The state of denial which characterises the government's policy now mirrors the state of delusion that characterised their policy in the run up to war."
Plaid Cymru and the SNP used their half-day debate to put forward the cross-party motion which calls for the establishment of a select committee of seven MPs who are privy councillors to "review the way in which the responsibilities of government were discharged in relation to Iraq and all matters relevant thereto, in the period leading up to military action in that country in March 2003 and in its aftermath".
The text is the same as that of an early day motion put forward last year by Conservative MP Douglas Hogg, which was signed by 30 Labour MPs.
Wrong time
Responding for the government, foreign secretary Margaret Beckett insisted that ministers did not object to the principal of a wide-ranging inquiry but that the timing and form of the one suggested by the nationalist MPs was wrong.
"There will come a time when these issues will be explored in the round and in full so that we can learn whatever lessons we can from them. But my question is why this specific inquiry? And much more to the point why now?" she said.
The foreign secretary also rejected the Conservative position of holding an inquiry within a year, saying: "It sends the wrong signals at the wrong time and distracts resources and attention from where it is most needed and it appears to set a deadline on our operations in Iraq which would be politically and militarily damaging."
Beckett also said that the build up to the war had already been the subject of four separate inquiries.
"There have already been two parliamentary committee reports on Iraq: the foreign affairs committee report on the decision to go to war and the intelligence and security committee on Iraqi weapons of mass destruction, assessments and intelligence.
"There have been two further independent reports: the Hutton inquiry into the circumstances of the death of David Kelly and the Butler review of intelligence of weapons of mass destruction," she added.
Beckett said her about whether it was the time to have a further inquiry was a "resounding no".
"This is not the time for making these decisions. Because our words in the house today will be heard a very long way away: they will be heard by our troops who are already in great danger in Iraq; they can be heard by the Iraqi people and their government who need our support."
Next year
With the Conservative amendment failing to be chosen by the Speaker, William Hague said that his party would like to see an inquiry at a later stage
The shadow foreign secretary said: "A call for a major inquiry of some kind and at the appropriate time into an operation so vast, so expensive, so chequered with successes and failures as the war in Iraq and its aftermath has obvious merits.
"And I do say to the foreign secretary that I think she has made a mistake in being unable to say to the house today that there would be such an inquiry at some stage in the future."
He went on: "Whatever our views about the origins of the war, and I speak as one who has supported the government's objectives throughout, none of us can credibly argue there will not be lessons to be learnt of huge importance to this government and future governments."
Hague said the Tory amendment was different in two respects from that put forward by the nationalist MPs.
He called for the committee to include "leading public servants" to ensure it was not partisan.
And he later said it was important to hold the inquiry sometime in the next parliamentary session, similar to the Franks inquiry after the Falklands War.
