Drinking water companies are no longer allowed to close families with minors of water. Even if a household with children does not pay. Readers wonder: what about the elderly? Is drinking water not a right for everyone?
Households with minor children must always keep access to water, the Court of Appeal The Hague last year. Drinking water companies may close the water in other situations.
That is an “extremely means”, says the Association of Water Companies in the Netherlands (Vewin). According to Vewin, most households are reconnected to the Waternet within a few days.
Moreover, closing does not just happen: there are memories and reminders of beforehand. Furthermore, if they close the water, drinking water companies must give water in a jerry can to households that ask.
Nevertheless, according to the Court of Appeal, the conclusion policy is contrary to the International Convention on the Rights of the Child. Children have a fundamental right to access to water, the court said. What about the elderly? Because, readers wonder, what can an eighty -year -old woman who have difficulty walking with a jerry can of 3 liters of water?
‘Vulnerable’ should not run health risks
For “vulnerable consumers” something is laid down in the law, says Ellen Hennekens of NVVK, the branch organization for debt counselors. It states that the water may not be closed if a “vulnerable consumer” health risks runs through the closing of drinking water. This requires a statement from a non-treating doctor.
“The term ‘vulnerable’ is also a gray area,” says Hennekens. Some elderly people will fall under that, others not. “The government is still looking for how a clear distinction can be demonstrated.”
Moreover, the Court of Appeal made the ruling last year on the basis of the International Convention on the Rights of the Child. The elderly are not included. But isn’t everyone entitled to drinking water in addition to children?
Drinking water is internationally recognized right
“Access to drinking water is internationally recognized in several treaties and documents,” confirms Jasper Krommendijk, professor of human rights at Radboud University.
An important treaty is the ISCCR of the United Nations. The right to health is laid down in this, although the word ‘water’ is not literally mentioned. The latter is exactly the problem, Krommendijk explains.
“What makes it so difficult is that the judge can only test a treaty if the words in it have so -called ‘direct effect’.” In other words: the provision in the treaty must be very precise, concrete and clear. “Certainly in the field of social human rights, testing by the court is difficult,” says Krommendijk.
So there are all kinds of human rights, but they have no direct effect on court. They are not concrete enough.
People with disabilities have separate treaty
The Convention on Children is more concrete or stricter, says Krommendijk. That treaty stipulates that the interests of the child are paramount, he explains.
In addition, children are in a vulnerable position. Closing water is therefore legally untenable for children. The same reasoning could apply to other treaties. For example, Article 28 of the Handicapped Convention: “Access to clean drinking water” is clearly stated there.
Vulnerable people such as people with disabilities should therefore, just like children, always have access to drinking water. Some people with disabilities, just like children, depend on others for their primary necessities. “Something like that has not yet been determined by the judge, but I can imagine that you can also call on it,” says Krommendijk.
That can therefore also be the case for the elderly, although there is no separate treaty for that group. Krommendijk: “It has been talking about for years. But it is just not there yet.”
Drinking Water Companies Are No Longer Allowed to Cut Off Families with Minor Children From Water, Even If A House Hold With Children Not Pay. Readers Wonder: What about the Elderly? Is drinking water not a right for everyone?
Households with minor children must always have access to water, The Hague Court of Appeal Ruled Last Year. In other situations, drinking water companies May Cut Off the Water.
That is an “Ultimate Measure,” Says the Association of Water Companies in The Netherlands (Vewin). Accordance to Vewin, Most Households Are Reconnected to the Water Network Within A Few Days.
MoreOover, disconnection does not happen just like that: reminders and warnings precede it. Furthermore, If they Cut Off the Water, Drinking Water Companies Must Provide A Supply of Emergency Water in a JerryCan to Households That Request It.
However, accordance to the court of appeal, the disconnection policy is a contrary to the international convention on the rights of the child. Children Have A Fundamental Right to Access Water, The Court Stated. What about the Elderly? Because, Readers Wonder, What can an Eighty-year-old Woman who has Difficulty walking do with a 3-liter jerry can or water?
‘Vulnerable’ must not run health risks
Something Has Been Laid Down in Law for “Vulnerable Consumers,” Says Ellen Hennekens of NVVK, The Trade Organization for Debt Counselors. It States That the Water May Not Be Cut Off If A “Vulnerable Consumer” Runs Health Risks Due to the Disconnection of Drinking Water. However, A Statement from a non-TREATING DOCTOR is Required for this.
“The term” vulnerable “is also a Gray Area,” Says Hennekens. Some Elderly People Will Fall Under It, Others Will Not. “The Government is a still looking for how a clear distinction can be demonstrated.”
MoreOover, the Court of Appeal Made The Ruling Last Year Based on the International Convention on the Rights of the Child. The Elderly Are Not Covered by This. But Doessn’t Everyone have the right to drinking water, Bears Children?
Drinking Water is an Internationale Recognized Right
“Access to Drinking Water is Internationale Recognized in Several Treaties and Documents,” Confirms Jasper Krommendijk, Professor of Human Rights at Radboud University.
An Important Treaty is the ICESCR of the United Nations. It Enshrines the Right to Health, Although The Word ‘Water’ is not Literally MENTIONED. That is Exactly the Problem, Krommendijk Explains.
“What makes it so difficult is that the Judge can only test a treaty if the words in it have so-called ‘direct effect’.” In Other Words, The Provision in the Treaty Must Be Very Precise, Concrete And Clear. “Especialy in the Field of Social Human Rights, Testing by the Judge is Difficult,” Says Krommendijk.
So there are all child of human rights, but they have no direct effect for the judge. They are not concrete enough.
People with disabilities have a separate treaty
The Convention on the Rights of the Child is more concrete or stricter, Says Krommendijk. That Treaty Stipulates That The Interests of the Child Come First, He explains.
In Addition, Children are in a vulnerable position. Cutting Off Water is Therefore More Quickly Legally Untenable for Children. The Same Reasoning Could Apply to Other Treations. For example, article 28 of the convention on the rights of persons with disabilities: “Access to clean drinking water” is clearly stateed there.
Vulnerable People, Such as People with Disabilities, Should Therefore also Always Have Access To Drinking Water, Just Like Children. Some people with disabilities, like children, deepening on Others for Their Primary Needs. “Something like this has not yet leg determined by the judge, but I can imagine that you can also invoke it here,” Says Krommendijk.
That can also be the case for the elderly, altheoth there is no separate treaty for that group. Krommendijk: “It has leg talked about for years. But it’s just not there yet.”