TONY BLAIR is to face the serious charge, laid by a cross-party group of MPs, that he misled Parliament over the reasons for going to war with Iraq.

If found “guilty” he faces being shamed by the loss of his right to sit on the Privy Council, which advises the Queen, and lose his Right Honourable status.

The former prime minister could also – in theory – face imprisonment.

The Herald:

Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn said he would "probably" support the motion saying: "Parliament must hold to account, including Tony Blair, those who took us this particular war."

If passed, it is expected that a Commons committee would decide the penalty.

A crossbench group of 20 MPs plans to lay a rare motion of contempt of Parliament, or of censure, hoping that it will be debated before the summer recess on July 21.

Read more: What Blair said to Bush: the 525 day route to the Iraq war that spawned a Commons contempt motion

Former First Minister Alex Salmond, one of the 20, said he believed the action can count on the support of more than 100 MPs at this stage and believed it should not be seen as a party political matter.

The motion has to be approved by the Speaker of the House of Commons but Salmond believes the censure motion will have to be accepted as it is supported by a substantial number of crossbench MPs.

“It’s about Parliament not standing for being misled,” Salmond told the Sunday Herald, “particularly when the evidence is overwhelming of being told one story in public while the then prime minister was pursuing a totally different strategy in private with the American president.

The Herald:

"What he was talking to Bush about was regime change. But he was talking to Parliament about weapons of mass destruction.

“It is for parliamentarians to decide whether they can stand for someone saying one thing to Parliament and public, [while making] a quite different commitment to an American president. My view is, ‘up with that, we should not put’.

"It is now time for Parliament to get to the verdict and the sentence.”

Read more: How Blair may face both criminal and civil actions​

The development comes as families called for Mr Blair to face criminal charges over the damning Chilcot report which said that at the time of the 2003 invasion - which some say sowed the seeds for the rise of the Islamic State terror group - Saddam Hussein “posed no imminent threat”.

And it has emerged that the International Criminal Court has not ruled out an investigation of Blair for war crimes.

Among the supporters of the contempt campaign are those who believe they were persuaded to vote for the conflict on the "false prospectus" offered by the then Prime Minister.

The Herald:

They include the former Conservative party chairman David Davies, who was the shadow deputy prime minister at the time of the disastrous conflict – condemned as ‘illegal’ by critics – which resulted in the deaths of 189,000, including 179 British military personnel. An estimated 600,000 Iraqis died from other hardships, such as disease, in the chaos that followed.

Read more: Chilcot has vindicated anti-war protesters

The Chilcot inquiry revealed how the 9/11 terrorist attacks on the US which killed 3000 people proved to be the catalyst for a fundamental change in the US and UK's approach to Iraq with talk of military action on the agenda within a matter of weeks.

Supporters of the campaign said the most damning aspects of the Chilcot report was how Blair detailed a plan of action over Iraq to Bush while telling the public and Parliament a different story.

The Herald:

One memo from Bush to Blair within weeks of 9/11 while suggesting a military operation to deal with Omar or Osama bin Laden accepted that extending the war aims to Iraq was at least under consideration. Two months later in a separate memo Blair set out a plan of action to undermine Iraq president Saddam Hussein, supported by military action "when the rebellion finally occurs".

Read more: Jeremy Corbyn 'probably would' back contempt motion against Tony Blair over Iraq​

The campaign group has been meeting in private for some weeks awaiting the Chilcot publication and have taken legal advice from a number of international lawyers.

They have also been advised by the former Plaid Cymru MP, Adam Price AM, who led a campaign to impeach the then sitting Prime Minister more than a decade ago.

The Herald:

The campaign group believe Chilcot went "much further than many expected in presenting a comprehensive case against the Blair government".

As a result the MPs believe that the case for some form of parliamentary action is now "overwhelming".

Read more: While we soul-search, Iraq burns and bleeds​

A group spokesman said: "This initiative does not interfere in any way with legal action either by the authorities in terms of criminal law or by the service families in the civil courts. However, there is a specific parliamentary matter of holding the former prime minister to account given the revelations in Chilcot.

"Most damning of all is the detailing of what Blair was promising Bush in private memos while he was telling Parliament and people something entirely different in public statements.

"If we are to prevent such a catastrophe happening again it is essential that parliamentarians learn to hold the executive to critical examination in a way that Parliament failed to do in 2003. Holding Blair to account will be an essential part of that process of parliamentary accountability.

"The case has been made by Chilcot and any Parliament worth its salt is duty bound to take action."

Read more: Ron McKay: Blair carries on lying today to protect himself from the lies he has already told​

In the 18th and early 19th centuries it was a regular punishment for someone to be committed to the custody of the Serjeant at Arms or to prison, according to a Parliamentary Privilege report published in 1999.

Unruly MPs could be temporarily detained in a room inside the Elizabeth Tower, commonly known as Big Ben.

The last time this happened was on June 1880, when newly-elected Northampton MP Charles Bradlaugh refused to take the oath of allegiance and spent a night inside the tower. The room where he was detained is still called the Prison Room, but it is no longer used as a prison.

The Herald:

But the Commons resolved in 1978 to use its penal jurisdiction as sparingly as possible and the House has shown increasing reluctance to exercise its powers even when evidence of a contempt is clear.

The campaign group believe one of the realistic possible penalties is losing the right to sit on the Privy Council – the formal body of advisers to the Queen. That would mean losing his "Right Honourable" status.

In October 1947, Labour MP Garry Allighan (Labour, Gravesend) was expelled after lying to a committee and for gross contempt of the House after the publication of an article accusing MPs of insobriety and of taking bribes for the supply of information.

More recently, in May, 2002, transport secretary Stephen Byers resigned from the government after months of sustained criticism, including a motion of censure, mainly over allegations that he deceived parliament.

Mr Salmond said the motion would have to be accepted by the Speaker of the House of Commons but added: "It's a competent resolution, which is supported on a cross party basis by a large number or MPs, and is a matter a Speaker would carefully consider."

Supporting the campaign are MPs from Conservative, Labour and SNP parties and include Labour MP Kate Hoey, respected Conservative backbencher Sir Roger Gale. Also in the group is Caroline Lucas, the only Green Party MP, Margaret Ritchie from the SDLP and Hywel Williams of Plaid Cymru.