ALISTER Jack has said he "sees no reason" to use a Section 35 order to block any further legislation set for the Scottish Parliament.
Speaking to MPs on the Scottish Affairs Committee in Westminster, Jack denied that he would use the ruling from the Court of Session, which found his veto of Scotland's gender reforms was lawful, as an excuse to stop more bills from being given royal assent.
The Scottish Secretary said that there was nothing currently on Holyrood's agenda that he would seek to block using the power contained within the Scotland Act.
READ MORE: Scottish Government report 'showcases' embassies UK threatens to shut
Section 35 allows UK ministers to veto any legislation they believe will have an "adverse effect" on UK-wide law.
Asked if the outcome of the court ruling would encourage him to look for further ways to use Section 35, Jack said: "No, not at all."
He added that it was not an "unfettered power" available to him.
Jack (below) told MPs: "I see no reason for us to you know, go to court again.
"If the boundaries are being pushed, then it is right for the law officers advise my position as Secretary of State to act and you know, I will always act if that's the case.
"I can tell you as we look out now at the sort of future timeframe of legislation that's coming forward, I don't see anything currently, in the advice that I've got in front of me, that would lead us to return to court, thank goodness."
It comes as Jack told the committee that he was considering seeking legal costs from the Scottish Government from taking the Section 35 case to court.
The Scottish Secretary said he understood the Scottish Government had spent £230,000 so far, and that the UK Government had paid out £150,000.
READ MORE: Furious Alister Jack says Scottish ministers must follow Foreign Office rules
He said if appealed, which he urged the Scottish Government not to do, the costs could double if taken to the Inner House of the Court of Session, and double again if appealed up to the Supreme Court.
Jack said he estimated that at the "thick end" this could amount to £2 million.
"I'm talking to my legal officers now about seeking costs and I think the UK Government, we've had enough court cases," he said.
"There were commentators and those who said that I should have sought costs after Nicola Sturgeon brought her unsuccessful referendum, constitutional, who's got the right to hold the referendum challenge.
"We didn't do that at the time.
"I think this time, I'm minded, as you may have read in the press, I am minded to seek costs from the Scottish Government and I having those discussions with our law officers."
Jack also insisted during the evidence session that he did base his decision to use a Section 35 order on a "culture war".
Again urging Humza Yousaf not to appeal the case, the Scottish Secretary said he should not be “held to ransom” by the Scottish Greens.
“I think if he is bullied by Patrick Harvie, Lorna Slater and Ross Greer, that is a weakness on his behalf and will lead to an utter waste of taxpayers’ money when they’re saying they’ve got budget constraints,” Jack said.
“That makes no sense to me whatsoever.”
Earlier, Jack said it was such a "strong judgement" in favour of the UK Government that he believed it would be a "terrible mistake" to appeal it.
READ MORE: Council fury as David Cameron's Foreign Office to quit East Kilbride
The Scottish Government has 21 days from when the judgement was published to appeal, giving them until December 29, the committee was told.
The FM told journalists earlier that ministers had still not decided on which avenue to take.
“We will consider legal advice, we’ll consider, of course, other factors with urgency and with pace," Yousaf said on Monday.
“There’s a very narrow window, as you know, to make a decision on any appeal.
“We’ve not come to a decision yet because we have to consider, as I say, important issues like the legal advice."
Why are you making commenting on The National only available to subscribers?
We know there are thousands of National readers who want to debate, argue and go back and forth in the comments section of our stories. We’ve got the most informed readers in Scotland, asking each other the big questions about the future of our country.
Unfortunately, though, these important debates are being spoiled by a vocal minority of trolls who aren’t really interested in the issues, try to derail the conversations, register under fake names, and post vile abuse.
So that’s why we’ve decided to make the ability to comment only available to our paying subscribers. That way, all the trolls who post abuse on our website will have to pay if they want to join the debate – and risk a permanent ban from the account that they subscribe with.
The conversation will go back to what it should be about – people who care passionately about the issues, but disagree constructively on what we should do about them. Let’s get that debate started!
Callum Baird, Editor of The National
Comments: Our rules
We want our comments to be a lively and valuable part of our community - a place where readers can debate and engage with the most important local issues. The ability to comment on our stories is a privilege, not a right, however, and that privilege may be withdrawn if it is abused or misused.
Please report any comments that break our rules.
Read the rules hereLast Updated:
Report this comment Cancel