unit or family visiting room, the duration of which is determined according to the distance that the visitor has travelled", as well as the note dated 4 December 2014 on the conditions for access to and operation of family living units and family visiting rooms. This note stipulates that, in addition to the shortage of places within family visiting rooms and constraints inherent in detention such as architectural limits, access to such visiting rooms may be refused on the grounds of upholding security, law and order in the institution or preventing offences. The Chief Inspector also reminded the institution director that the circular of 14 April 2011 on the placement of prisoners in solitary confinement specifies that "the duration and frequency of authorised visits are identical to those enjoyed by other prisoners". Lastly, she recommended that family visiting room requests made by people placed in the disciplinary wing not be systematically rejected, but rather be subject to consideration on a case -bycase basis. 1.5 The working conditions of prisoners at the Yvelines remand prison In April 2016, the Chief Inspector's attention was drawn to the situation of prisoners selected for production workshops within the Yvelines remand prison. During their visit to this institution in June 2015, inspectors had found that notice had been served to certain contractors following the inspection of the workshop facilities by the Labour Inspectorate in 2010 and 2011. It had been brought to the CGLPL's attention that the working conditions of prisoners had deteriorated in these workshops, particularly for the people working for one of the companies present in the institution: their monthly wage had fallen due to errors in the calculation of the piece work pay and the irregularity with which workers were called to work; workers were not allowed to talk or take the two daily breaks; no protective overalls were provided to the production operators. In order to gain a clear idea of the facts referred to it, the Chief Inspector asked the institution about them and to see a copy of a certain number of documents. In reply, the institution management indicated that, in principle, the work rate was determined by the contractor and counter-checked by prison staff, but that the company in question had always refused to forward, in a transparent manner, the necessary price information for determining the rates. It added that the operators benefit from two fifteen-minute breaks every day. As for work overalls, it maintained that the workers were provided with protective gloves but that they did not come into direct contact with hazardous products. Lastly, it informed the Chief Inspector that it had asked for the Labour Inspectorate to conduct a visit for 2016. The study of a number of documents forwarded by the institution threw up new questions concerning the means by which the people called to work were selected and the work rate and relief from production were defined for workers, so-called "therapeutic" selections and information contained in the workers' undertaking documents. Following the Chief Inspector's intervention, the undertaking documents were amended. They are now in line with the regulatory provisions (addition of the type of agreement signed, date and signature of the document by the prison administration representative). Moreover, the institution's efforts to encourage the selection of so-called "vulnerable" people were highlighted. The Chief Inspector is nevertheless keeping a particularly close eye on the action that will be taken following the notice letter sent by the institution to the company in question so that the latter clearly display the production prices in the workshop at the earliest possible opportunity . Examination of this case has informed the Chief Inspectorate's thinking on prison work as well as the opinion published in early 2017 on this subject. 72