been many occasions where the CGLPL observed that the use of constraint methods was almost systematic during external movements of prisoners for medical reasons, either because the prisoners are, with few exceptions, systematically placed in the highest security class or even, sometimes, because their classification is revised upwards when an external movement plan is being carried out. The CGLPL has found that warders were very often present during consultations and care administration, without this raising any objections on the part of medical staff and, sometimes, at the latter's request even. On two occasions in different institutions, it even noted the use of restraint methods and the presence of warders while women were undergoing childbirth. This situation is absolutely unacceptable. On the matter of secure rooms, the fifteen visits carried out in 2016 have not revealed any progress, in terms of information, living conditions or respect of medical confidentiality. The CGLPL therefore feels it necessary to drive home the fact that its 2015 findings were confirmed by a cross-government mission performed by two general inspectorates and were not challenged in any way by the Government. It is therefore inexplicable given these conditions that the situation criticised is showing no signs of improvement. In the very short term it is vital that the necessary organisation and training measures be adopted to guarantee external movements, accommodation, consultation and health care for prisoners that are respectful of medical confidentiality and the dignity of prisoners cared for in hospital settings. The CGLPL stresses that these are measures with no financial impact and no budgetary considerations should therefore be cited to explain the delay. 67