The concept of delegated legislation is often criticised for all but one of the following reasons?

Analyze the question: The question asks which option is NOT a criticism of delegated legislation. Three options are criticisms, and one is actually a point in its favour.

Concept: Delegated legislation (also called subsidiary or subordinate legislation) is law made by a person or body, such as a minister or an agency, to whom the legislature has given the power to do so.

Advantages (arguments in favour):

• It saves the legislature's time.
• It allows rule-making by experts on technical subjects.
• It is flexible and quick, which helps in emergencies.

Criticisms (arguments against):

• It can lead to abuse of power by unelected officials.
• It is a violation, or at least an erosion, of the separation of powers, because the executive ends up making laws.
• Those who make the rules may lack legislative skill and procedure, and the rules get less debate and scrutiny.
• It is often hard to control, and the public may not be aware of the rules.

Solution, option by option:

• A. Abuse of power is a standard criticism. ✔ (a criticism)
• B. Lack of legislative knowledge and procedure by the delegates is a criticism. ✔ (a criticism)
• C. Expertise in making rules on specific subject matters is the reason delegated legislation is defended, not criticised. This is the exception.
• D. Violation of separation of powers is a standard criticism. ✔ (a criticism)

Answer: C, because expertise is an advantage of delegated legislation, not a criticism.

Exam tip: In "all but one" questions, sort the options into "for" and "against" first. For delegated legislation, remember the advantages with T-E-F: Time-saving, Expertise, Flexibility. Anything matching these is a benefit and so is likely the odd one out when the question asks about criticisms.