such regular presence necessary, the hospitals of the towns in which detention facilities are established need to provide the necessary health care. The necessary contacts need to be established, in particular between prefectures and regional health agencies. 2.1.2.3 - Detention Centres for Illegal Immigrants The majority of the reports sent by the Contrôle Général to the minister concerned in 2013 relate to follow-up inspections. They are therefore concerned with whether or not progress has been made and with assessment thereof: not on the basis of abstract imperatives; but rather on the basis of specific comments made in the course of previous inspections. Generally speaking, changes have been implemented in a positive manner. However, they do not make any substantial difference to the actual situation. As emphasised below in section 3 of the report, absence of change does not necessarily apply to costly improvements: this is characteristic of situations which resemble administrative paralysis attributable to the absence of initiatives going beyond the scope of the handling of immediate situations and lack of exchanges between the various centres. a/ Diversity Indeed, the most surprising aspect is the great diversity of applicable rules. Not about secondary questions – which would scarcely be of concern to the inspectors - but with regard to matters involving foreigners’ rights, including their fundamental rights. The following elements have already been brought up in previous annual reports: Access to associations providing support to foreigners in the exercise of their rights (article L. 553-6) is often limited; while in other centres, it is unrestricted, that is to say that it is not subject to the condition of agreement on the part of the officers and availability of one of the latter in order to accompany the applicant to the office of the association. The latter solution, as the Contrôle Général has already stated in writing, is more in accordance with the spirit of the texts. Why does it remain an exception? The regular presence of officers in the detention area (rooms, exercise area) is an essential factor for successful maintenance of relative calm. Why, in large centres in the Parisian urban area, do dealings between detainees and the administration take place exclusively through the private company in charge of meals and solely via the intermediary of a speaking grille? The history of these centres is nonetheless far from lacking in incidents, some of them serious. Such presence on the part of officials, in places where it is organised, may or may not be ensured by officers in possession of deadly weapons. Reflection on this point was requested from the Ministry of the Interior in 2009 which responded (before Parliament) with an objection to admissibility. The question needs to be asked once again. b/ Practical questions Although the building aspects of detention centres do not, in the majority of cases, raise any major difficulties (between the two inspections of the CRA of Saint-Exupéry, work was undertaken in order to limit the effects of humidity and put an end to effects attributable to the presence of asbestos), it is regrettable that in most centres, four persons to a room is the norm of occupancy and that, in the most recent centres, the rooms no longer contain bathroom facilities. For all that, it is well known that in all places of deprivation of liberty collective showers are places conducive to violence and threats: this element manifestly appeared less important than possible damage. The assessment needs to be changed in this respect. 25