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". 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. 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". 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. Labour leadership challenger Angela Eagle, who voted for the 2003 war, said she regretted her decision but warned against using Parliament to take "revenge" against Mr Blair. "I haven't seen the motion yet, we have to make certain that we don't spend our time in Parliament just exacting revenge," she said. "I think Tony Blair has been put, rightly, through the mill about the decisions he took, the Chilcot report did that." Ms Eagle said she would not have voted for the war if she had the information now available to her. "I do regret it and certainly if I had known then what I know now I wouldn't have supported it," she told BBC One's Sunday Politics. "The important thing from the Chilcot report is that we learn the lessons of that so those mistakes can never be made again in future." Asked if she agreed with Lord Prescott that the war was illegal, she said "Chilcot hasn't said that" and added: "The evidence at the time and the attorney general's advice at the time wasn't to that effect. "It's no good trying to second guess what happened subsequently." Former Scottish first minister Alex Salmond said the move towards a motion of contempt was supported by MPs from six different political parties. Asked whether the move was largely symbolic, he told the BBC's Sunday Politics Scotland programme: "Symbolism can be important in terms of parliament's role. "This doesn't pre-judge or preclude legal action, either criminal from the authorities or civil from the service families. This is about what parliament does if it believes it was misled over a huge issue or systematically misled over a period of time. "I think the evidence is there in Chilcot. We've had the inquiry, the trial if you like, now what we're doing is moving to the verdict and any parliament worth its salt would accept responsibility to make that judgment." Green Party MP Caroline Lucas was one of the group behind the parliamentary motion, which has been meeting in private for some weeks planning the move. Ms Eagle said she would not have voted for the war if she had the information now available to her. "I do regret it and certainly if I had known then what I know now I wouldn't have supported it," she told BBC One's Sunday Politics. "The important thing from the Chilcot report is that we learn the lessons of that so those mistakes can never be made again in future." Asked if she agreed with Lord Prescott that the war was illegal, she said "Chilcot hasn't said that" and added: "The evidence at the time and the attorney general's advice at the time wasn't to that effect. "It's no good trying to second guess what happened subsequently." Former Scottish first minister Alex Salmond said the move towards a motion of contempt was supported by MPs from six different political parties. Asked whether the move was largely symbolic, he told the BBC's Sunday Politics Scotland programme: "Symbolism can be important in terms of parliament's role. "This doesn't pre-judge or preclude legal action, either criminal from the authorities or civil from the service families. This is about what parliament does if it believes it was misled over a huge issue or systematically misled over a period of time. "I think the evidence is there in Chilcot. We've had the inquiry, the trial if you like, now what we're doing is moving to the verdict and any parliament worth its salt would accept responsibility to make that judgment." Green Party MP Caroline Lucas was one of the group behind the parliamentary motion, which has been meeting in private for some weeks planning the move. She said: "The Chilcot report is a damning indictment of Blair's record. It showed that the former prime minster actively deceived Parliament and led this country into a disastrous and bloody war under false pretences. "I'm joining with fellow MPs to hold Blair to account by tabling a contempt motion which could see him barred from public office and have his privy counsellorship stripped from him." But senior Labour MP Dame Margaret Beckett, who was in the Cabinet at the time of the vote on the war, said: "The Chilcot report was never going to settle the arguments about the war. "The people behind this contempt motion were always going to use the Chilcot report for their own ends. "It is, however, very clear from the Chilcot report that Tony Blair did not lie, did not falsify intelligence and that the Cabinet was not misled on the presentation of the legal advice. "As a member of the Cabinet at the time, I am clear that the attorney general provided a clear legal basis for military action which was consistent with all the information with which Cabinet had been presented on a regular basis over the previous weeks."
