Admittedly, the specific characteristics of imprisonment mean that the application of ordinary law has to be adapted, with regard for example to labour disputes and employee representation. However, the only exceptions to ordinary Labour rules should be exclusively based upon preserving the purpose of penal institutions Thus, ignorance of the rules of ordinary law, with regard to hygiene and safety, labour relations and length of working hours, cannot be justified by any principle of sentence enforcement. The inspectors have nonetheless ascertained violation of these rules in many of the institutions inspected: persons working at night in their cells, “assistants” assigned to general services without the benefit of a weekly day of rest, a female prisoner refused admission to a workshop on the grounds that she was pregnant, toxic products handled without the proper equipment, virtual nonexistence of labour inspections, absence of daily sick pay in case of illness, uncertainty of compensation in case of industrial accident etc. These blatant and unjustified infringements of Labour rules need to be examined in the light of the Prisons Act: article 32 of the latter law specifies the rules to be applied with regard to the calculation of pay – minimum index-linked value, according to the employment regime –; for its part, article 33 mentions the drawing up of an “instrument of engagement”, “signed by the head of the institution and the prisoner, [which] sets out the latter’s professional rights and obligations as well as the working conditions and pay. In particular it specifies the terms according to which, under conditions appropriate to their situation and notwithstanding the absence of an employment contract, the prisoner has the benefit of the provisions concerning integration through work provided for under articles L. 5132-1 to L. 5132-17 of the Labour Code (Code du travail)”. Once again, it is regrettable to ascertain an imbalance in the consequences of failure to apply these two articles: in reality, the rules concerning calculation of wages and integration through work are not properly applied – in particular in terms of wages and length of working hours – without any consequences for the head of the institution who is “the employer”; on the other hand, any breach of duty on the part of a prisoner can lead to their “dismissal from employment”, without the inter partes hearing provided for under article 24 of the Act of 12th of April 2000 concerning the rights of citizens in their relations with the administrations. The law needs, on the one hand, to clearly set out the role of work in prison in terms of preparation for integration and rehabilitation; on the other hand, to set more extensive rules in terms of labour relations, in particular with regard to the breaking off of these relations and pay; and, finally, to fix the general framework for the rules of safety and protection of workers in prison. Moreover, the rules set out under articles 32 and 33 of the said Act need to be applied by both parties – “employer” and “employee” – subject to sanctions for the commission of breaches, regardless of the party that commits them. 4.6 Professional Training, Experiment without Assessment Two “pilot regions”, Aquitaine and Pays de la Loire, are involved in professional training schemes among the prison population. According to the terms of article 9 of the Prisons Act, the trial period should last for three years “as from 1st January following the publication of this Act” and a report is to be sent by the Government to Parliament concerning the implementation of this experiment six months before the end of the planned period. The Contrôle Général recommends that conclusions should be publicly drawn from the two experiments undertaken and draws attention to the issues of equal access to training, which are raised by possible decentralisation of funds for the professional training of prisoners. 99