Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn has indicated he will back a Commons motion to find Tony Blair in contempt of Parliament following accusations he deceived MPs over the Iraq War.
Mr Corbyn said he "probably would" support the effort to find a parliamentary way to hold the former prime minister to account over the war.
A motion of contempt is expected to be tabled by senior MPs including Tory David Davis, who accused Mr Blair of "deceit".
Read more: Blair to face Commons 'trial' over Iraq war deception
Mr Corbyn told BBC One's Andrew Marr Show: "I urge colleagues to read the Butler report and read the Chilcot report about the way in which Parliament was denied the information it should have had, the way in which there was lack of preparations for the post-invasion situation in Iraq and the way there were assertions of weapons of mass destruction.
"Parliament must hold to account, including Tony Blair, those who took us into this particular war."
Asked if he would back the motion, he said: "I haven't seen it yet, but I think I probably would."
Mr Davis said he will make a motion of contempt about Mr Blair in the Commons this week.
It comes after Lord Prescott, the deputy prime minister at the time of the 2003 invasion, claimed the Iraq War was illegal.
Read more: How Blair may face both criminal and civil actions
Mr Davis said if his motion is accepted by Speaker John Bercow, it could be debated before Parliament breaks up for the summer.
The senior Tory told the Andrew Marr Show: "I'm going to put down a contempt motion, a motion which says that Tony Blair has held the House in contempt.
"It's a bit like contempt of court. Essentially by deceit."
Referring to the 2003 vote in invade Iraq, he added: "If you look just at the debate alone, on five different grounds the House was misled, three in terms of the weapons of mass destruction, one in terms of the UN votes were going, and one in terms of the threat, the risks.
"He might have done one of those accidentally, but five?"
He said if the House agreed Mr Blair had held the House in contempt, MPs would have to persuade the authorities "to take the next step".
The long-awaited Chilcot report strongly criticised the way former prime minister Mr Blair took the country to war in 2003 on the basis of "flawed" intelligence with inadequate preparation at a time when Saddam Hussein did not pose an "imminent threat".
Read more: Alex Salmond's plan to put Tony Blair in the dock in Scotland hits legal hitch
Sir John Chilcot also said the way the decision about the legal basis for the war was reached was "far from satisfactory", but the report did not rule on the legality of the military action.
Labour heavyweight Lord Prescott used his strongest language yet to condemn Mr Blair's decision to take part in the Iraq war, a decision he supported at the time.
Writing in The Sunday Mirror, the peer said: "I will live with the decision of going to war and its catastrophic consequences for the rest of my life.
"In 2004, the UN secretary-general Kofi Annan said that as regime change was the prime aim of the Iraq war, it was illegal.
"With great sadness and anger, I now believe him to be right."
Lord Prescott said he had concerns about the way Mr Blair ran his government, with Cabinet ministers given "too little paper documentation" to make decisions.
He also said intelligence reports were based on "discussions at receptions and prejudiced sources", amounting to "tittle-tattle, not hard evidence".
The Chilcot report was a "damning indictment of how the Blair government handled the war - and I take my fair share of blame", he added.
"As the deputy prime minister in that government I must express my fullest apology, especially to the families of the 179 men and women who gave their lives in the Iraq war."
He also welcomed current Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn's decision to apologise on behalf of the party for the war.
Mr Blair has defended the decision to oust Saddam and insisted that his efforts to form a close relationship with the US had persuaded Mr Bush to pursue a second UN security council resolution, which ultimately was not obtained.
Why are you making commenting on The Herald only available to subscribers?
It should have been a safe space for informed debate, somewhere for readers to discuss issues around the biggest stories of the day, but all too often the below the line comments on most websites have become bogged down by off-topic discussions and abuse.
heraldscotland.com is tackling this problem by allowing only subscribers to comment.
We are doing this to improve the experience for our loyal readers and we believe it will reduce the ability of trolls and troublemakers, who occasionally find their way onto our site, to abuse our journalists and readers. We also hope it will help the comments section fulfil its promise as a part of Scotland's conversation with itself.
We are lucky at The Herald. We are read by an informed, educated readership who can add their knowledge and insights to our stories.
That is invaluable.
We are making the subscriber-only change to support our valued readers, who tell us they don't want the site cluttered up with irrelevant comments, untruths and abuse.
In the past, the journalist’s job was to collect and distribute information to the audience. Technology means that readers can shape a discussion. We look forward to hearing from you on heraldscotland.com
Comments & Moderation
Readers’ comments: You are personally liable for the content of any comments you upload to this website, so please act responsibly. We do not pre-moderate or monitor readers’ comments appearing on our websites, but we do post-moderate in response to complaints we receive or otherwise when a potential problem comes to our attention. You can make a complaint by using the ‘report this post’ link . We may then apply our discretion under the user terms to amend or delete comments.
Post moderation is undertaken full-time 9am-6pm on weekdays, and on a part-time basis outwith those hours.
Read the rules here