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.

The National: Alister Jack is speaking at the Scottish Affairs Committee

"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.

The National: Nicola Sturgeon

"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."