The 1974 rehabilitation of offenders act is outdated and sorely misnamed.

For many offenders, it doesn't offer rehabilitation for many offenders, but instead stipulates lengthy periods during which a person convicted of a crime can be required to disclose their past. This can effectively hand them a 'second sentence' until their conviction is finally spent.

A court's sentence should be the punishment for a crime, and the justice system must acknowledge the need for people to move on and have a fresh start. This is not only just, it is socially desirable.

Without the chance of rehabilitation, there is a greater likelihood that someone will offend again, which is the outcome the justice system must be trying to avoid.

But there is evidence that this is happening. Studies show a strong correlation between convictions among men and the likelihood of unemployment. For women the stigmatising effect of offending is stronger still. The Scottish Government says it is eight times harder for those with criminal convictions to find work.

Ministers are currently consulting on plans to change the rules, cutting the time beyond which a range of convictions is considered 'spent' and increasing the length of sentence that ensures someone must always disclose a conviction from 30 months to 48.

The majority of those responding to a Scottish Government consultation on the issue agreed that the old act was no longer fit for its purpose.

But driving on a road paved with good intentions can be risky. One unintended consequence of this measure, according to insurers, is that premiums for well-behaved motorists could rise.

The proposed law would allow convictions for speeding, driving without insurance or even drink driving, depending on the sentence, to be spent after just one year instead of the current five.

That removes, insurers say, an essential tool which enables them to ask drivers who pose the greatest risk to pay more. Unable to take such declarations into account, they will be forced to increase prices across the board, they argue, penalising law-abiding motorists.

This does seem to be an example of the law of unintended consequences and it is a timely reminder that there are risks as well as gains to the Scottish Government's approach.

We have other safeguards, with background checks on those working with vulnerable groups and the creation of Disclosure Scotland and Mappa public monitoring schemes and laws on the protection of vulnerable groups. Add in Google and there is probably more than enough information available to protect the vulnerable.

Existing disclosure periods are excessive, and the proposals will actually see Scotland catch up with England and Wales which have already acted to update the law.

However there is a balance to be struck between public safety and the need for those who have offended to be able to put that behind them and start again.

The evidence is that a liberalisation of the rules on spent convictions and declaring convictions will be good for Scotland, but ministers must be sure they have the balance of risk right, before finalising their intentions.