Finally, it is impossible for a person lacking resources to put any savings together, which could enable them, through saving on costs, to make purchases of more than 50 euros; responsible behaviour of this kind would nonetheless be conducive to a project of rehabilitation. Situations in which prisoners are in great poverty need to be brought to an end: to this end, the rules for the receipt of minimum social benefits by prisoners need to be revised and a fixed ceiling of resources, excluding family resources, brought into general use for the payment of a considerably increased allowance. 5. Respect for Private Life: many a slip between cup and lip Through the Prisons Act of 24th of November 2009, the legislature, without drafting an ad hoc chapter, thus included a certain number of provisions in the Act enabling prisoners to enjoy this minimum of private life and privacy. 5.1 Absence of Individual Cells in Remand Prisons While the principle of placement in individual cells had been included in the Code of Criminal Procedure since 1876 – but was still just as little applied in 2009 –, there was good reason to be pleased that the legislature responsible for the Prisons Act of 24th of November 2009 clearly reasserts this principle129 (against the opinion of the government). The text did not lead to any improvement. Not only was the scope of this obligation already reduced by two of the three exceptions allowed by the Act but, article 100 of this same Act, reproducing the previous approach, instituted a moratorium on individual cell placement in remand prisons “on the grounds that the internal layout of the premises or the number of prisoners present did not enable its application”. In order to mitigate the effects of this restriction, article 100 concluded: “Convicted persons and, subject to agreement from the judge in charge of the investigation, persons awaiting trial, can request transfer to the closest remand prison enabling placement in an individual cell”. The prisons Administration does not, in fact, have any obligation to fulfil all requests and, were it bound thereto, it would be unable to do so. In view of the regular increase in overcrowding in remand prisons, on the one hand, and, on the other, the still inadequate number of so-called individual cells (between 6 m² and 11 m²) in these same institutions (in addition prison overcrowding has led to “doubling” a proportion of cells designed for a single person, this is the case in the most recently constructed remand prisons in particular). It is not surprising to ascertain that placement in individual cells proves to be a right that is too rarely applied for persons awaiting trial or convicted and serving short sentences; and that, when its application is implemented, it is after a necessarily long period of time: between six and twenty-four months, according to the aforementioned report from the Senate. Requests for transfer, based on article 100 of the Prisons Act, are rare. This is probably because prisoners are not all informed of their right; presumably it is also attributable to the fact that those who are informed thereof are aware of the numerous difficulties to be faced in order for their request to be granted. Above all, in such scenarios, transfer on the grounds of a request for placement in an individual cell takes place at the expense of the right to move closer to their 129 Article 87 of the Prisons Act: “Persons indicted or charged and any defendant placed on remand are placed in individual cells. When indicted, charged and accused persons are placed in collective cells, the cells shall be suitable for the number of prisoners accommodated therein. The latter prisoners shall be fit for living with other persons. Their security and their dignity shall be ensured.” 101