Christopher McFarland of Sinclairs Law started the day with a canter through the Additional Learning Needs (ALN) System in Wales. His talk provided an excellent overview of the system, but also an appraisal of its perceived shortcomings.

The lack of funding to support for ALN has resulted in a 53% decrease in the number of pupils identified as having needs compared to the previous system. Reviews conducted by the Education and Training Inspectorate for Wales (Estyn) in 2023 and 2024 show inconsistent practices across Wales leaving many without support. When parents are told repeatedly, and wrongly, that their child now does not qualify for support then they tend to believe it. They do not know what they do not know and so it can be difficult to mount a challenge. The only way to do this is to get your own legal representation, more often than not at your own cost, and to push back. Doing so regularly reaps rewards as the lack of understanding on the statutory side is exposed at Tribunals time and again.

Emma Sutton KC was given an equally challenging task to discuss the growing differences between England and Wales, particularly when it comes to healthcare provision as the Senedd flexes their law-making powers. While we share a single legal jurisdiction between Wales and England, the Senedd’s growing powers result in distinct legislation for the Principality. The Health & Social Care Act 2012 and subsequent Care Act 2014 created in England a more complicated system of commissioning healthcare with the further development of the internal market.

In Wales the system is simpler under NHS (Wales) Act 2006 and Social Services and Well-being (Wales) Act 2014. There is no internal market and health boards plan and provide services. However the application of the law varies from health board to health board again leaving the public having to challenge decision making to obtain what the patient truly needs. Interpretation of the law, whether in England or Wales, is still the remit of the Supreme Court and those decisions are binding in both jurisdictions. The Court of Protection still operates equally in both and Emma provided an excellent review of its operations across the board dealing with Wills, LPAs. Prenups, property & affairs issues, Advance Decisions, health & welfare matters, marriage, sexual relations and so on.

For people lacking capacity to manage their property and affairs there is often a lack of awareness as to the rules around who should be their appointed Deputy. The fact that the Deputy is appointed by the Court by Court Order often causes people to think such an appointment is a fait accompli. It could not be further from the truth and the third talk given by Joy Davies (partner at RWK Goodman), Joanne Roberts (case manager at Westcountry Case Management) and Bernadette Hurley (founder of Moss Rose Cottage) went into detail of what to do if and when relations with a deputy hit a rocky period and a change may be needed. The relationship between the Deputy and the person they are appointed to help is key and communication is essential. If that relationship breaks down the advice is always to try and fix the issue. But some relationships are beyond repair and a change can be the only way forward. This is entirely right and proper. Jo and Bernadette gave examples from personal experiences of problems that have arisen between Deputies and their clients and the way in which those relationships have been repaired or replaced as necessary.

Finally the theme flowed through a talk from Carole Chantler (Chair of the Institute of Registered Case Managers) discussing the role regulation of case managers should play in that profession and by extension in the process of choosing a case manager. The mission for rolling out regulation in the industry is to safeguard the public by setting and upholding standards for case managers. The journey to becoming a registered case manager was set out, along with how those who are registered would benefit from that system year-on-year. Standards of practice would be enforced, defining requirements for continuing professional development; minimum requirements for ongoing supervision, and the maintenance of competency frameworks. The call was for the whole profession to follow suit. After all, you wouldn’t use an unregulated case manager, would you?

After lunch further meat was put on the bones of the talks in a panel discussion. Hosted by Rob Thomas (partner at RWK Goodman), this interactive session featured all our speakers fielding questions from the audience and triggering lively exchanges. By the end we felt that light had been shed on the unknown unknowns and that the balance of power in the eternal struggle for knowledge had shifted the right way.