Surely, further to G v Southwark, the right to accommodation is an assertable right if the applicant has been found to be a child in need under s.20? Was not that the central point within G v Southwark?

Surely, again taking G v Southwark into consideration, children in need under s.20 are also completely dependent “for survival” on the right to accommodation under s.20?

If one reads the relevant paragraphs from Stec and Loiseau, quoted by Lord Hope at [62] and [63], and then re-reads G v Southwark I don’t know how you can end up where Lord Hope has.

Hale’s analysis is much more preferable and, crucially, more sustainable in the long run.