Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, with your permission, I shall reply to this Parliamentary Question. Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, the Road Development Authority is responsible for the construction, care, maintenance and improvement of main roads and motorways, while the Traffic Management and Road Safety Unit, which operates under the purview of the Ministry of Land Transport, is responsible for the traffic management and congestion alleviation. Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, the construction of the Terre Rouge-Verdun-Trianon link road, now known as Motorway M3, was completed in December 2013 and was implemented following a feasibility study having as main objectives to reduce congestion on Motorways M1 and M2 and improve travel time and connectivity between the north and the centre of the island. The project also contributes to boost economic development, enhance road network resilience by providing an alternate route and creating new development opportunities. Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I am informed by the TRMSU that prior to the construction and opening of the Motorway M3, the main route for vehicles travelling between the southern and northern parts of the island was through Port Louis via Motorways M1 and M2. A study carried out by the TMRSU in 2011 indicated that through traffic accounted for approximately 30% of total traffic converging daily towards Port Louis, thereby contributing significantly to congestion along these corridors. Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I am also informed by the TMRSU that no specific post- implementation study has been carried out in the subsequent years following the commissioning of the project to assess its effectiveness. However, once it opened to traffic, the Motorway M3 provided an alternative route for through traffic, thereby reducing dependence on Port Louis as a transit point. Observations at the time indicated an immediate improvement in traffic flow along Motorways M1, M2. Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, as the House is aware, over the past decade, Mauritius has experienced a significant increase in the number of registered vehicles, rising from 486,144 in 2015 to 746,961 in 2025, representing an increase of approximately 53%. This has resulted in increased traffic volumes across the road network and has contributed to worsening congestion along Motorways M1 and M2 towards Port Louis. According to traffic counts carried out in 2025 by the TMRSU, approximately 4,300 vehicles per hour travel towards Port Louis from the south via Motorway M1 during peak hours, while approximately 3,600 vehicles travel from the north via Motorway M2 per hour. The most recent traffic count along the Motorway M3 was carried out in 2018 by the TMRSU. Adjusting for the increase in traffic over the years, it is estimated that approximately 3,100 vehicles travel towards Ebène from the north at the Côte d'Or roundabout during peak hours, 7.45 a.m. to 9.30 a.m., while approximately 2,500 vehicles travel in the opposite direction. In the absence of the M3, this traffic would otherwise have passed through Port Louis via Motorways M1 and M2, further aggravating congestion on these corridors. Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, in addition to the construction of Motorway M3 as an alternate route with a view to addressing congestion, the RDA has completed several projects along Motorways M1 and M2 to further improve the level of service of its road network. Grade separated junctions and flyovers have been implemented at Caudan, Quay D, Terre Rouge, and La Vigie. A third lane has also been added on Motorway M1 between Terre Rouge and Roche Bois. Further traffic modelling exercises are being carried out at Mapou and Labourdonnais roundabout for future interventions. Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, the RDA further intends to facilitate access to Motorway M3 through the construction of slip lanes at Côte d'Or and Ripailles roundabouts. These slip lanes will allow road users to gain access to the motorway in less time and contribute to an overall improvement in the traffic fluidity along the corridor and connecting roads. Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, moreover, Government intends to proceed with the implementation of the Ring Road Phase 2 project, which is expected to significantly alleviate traffic congestion in and around Port Louis and act as an alternate route for road users who do not need to pass through the city centre. This new strategically will help redistribute traffic currently using the M1 Motorway and key junctions within Port Louis, thereby reducing pressure on heavily congested corridors during peak hours. It will also improve connectivity between existing roads and enhance the overall resilience and efficiency of the national road network. Besides, Government will implement a flyover project at Camp Fouquereaux to render the traffic more fluid. Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, in the meantime, I am requesting the RDA to carry out a joint survey with the Police and the TMRSU, including a fresh traffic count, to determine immediate measures to alleviate the traffic situation along Motorway M3.

Time is over! Hon. Members, the Table has been advised that the following PQs have been withdrawn: B/596, B/597, B/598, B/599, B/602, B/606, B/607, B/608, B/609, B/610, B/611, B/612, B/613, B/614, B/616, B/617, B/618, B/619, B/622, B/623, B/624, B/625, B/626, B/627, and B/628. MOTION SUSPENSION OF S.O. 10(2)

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I beg to move that all the business on today’s Order Paper be exempted from the provisions of paragraph (2) of Standing Order 10. Dr. Boolell rose and seconded. Question put and agreed to. PUBLIC BILL Second Reading THE CERTIFICATE OF CHARACTER BILL (No. II of 2026) Order read for resuming adjourned debate on the Second Reading of the Certificate of Character Bill (No. II of 2026). Question again proposed.

Hon. Minister of Tertiary Education, Science and Research, Dr. Sukon! (4.20 p.m.)

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I rise in full support of this Bill. I must say many of us from both sides of this House must have met young people, parents, mothers and fathers in tears. Why? Because their son or daughter could not secure a job because of the 'certificat de moralité'. Very often we are asked the question. The Government is giving free education up to the university level, is giving free transport, is providing textbooks freely for many grades. Then why is the law itself closing the doors? Why is this document, 'certificat de moralité' not allowing our son, our daughter to secure that job? What do we want as parents? We would like them to have a decent life and a decent life depends on a decent job. The question put to us: why are you allowing to shatter the dream of not only the young person but also the entire family? Pourquoi ce document administratif est en train de condamner l'avenir de ce jeune même avant qu'il soit écrit ? Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, we cannot tell someone, ‘study hard, work hard, train hard, dream big' and then allow the law to keep opportunities out of reach. We cannot say, 'build your future', but we will continue to judge you by your past. Contrairement à l'ancien régime qui n'a pas jugé bon de revoir ce dispositif, nous ne restons pas les bras croisés. Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, that is why today I want to speak beyond this Chambre. I want to speak to every student. I want to speak to every parent. I want to speak to every mother and father who want one thing above all else for their child: a fair chance in life. I want to tell them that this Bill is not only about certificate. It is about justice. It is about fairness. It is about opportunity. It is about hope and above all about second chances. Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, the current Act does one thing good; it protects the public. But it does one thing in a very undesirable way; it traps too many people in the past for too long. This Bill changes that by raising the fine threshold and reducing the waiting period for several offences. Thus, it ensures that the minor offences do not continue to haunt the individuals for long. This is a major reform. Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, it rests on a simple idea. Law must make the difference between danger and reform. It must distinguish between serious crime and lesser offending. It must distinguish between someone who remains a risk and someone who has changed. This is not softness, this is fairness. This is proportion and this is wisdom. Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, now let me say something very clearly to the country. The Bill is not soft on crime. Serious offences will still remain on the certificate. Grave wrongdoing remains visible because the public must be protected. So, this Bill does not weaken protection. It keeps protection strong. Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I am really impressed by the balance in this Bill. It is firm where firmness is required. It is fair where fairness is required. It is protective of society but not blind to rehabilitation. It is serious about crime but also serious about human dignity. That is why I would like to thank the hon. Prime Minister and the hon. Attorney General for this Bill. Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, this Bill says something very clearly. The person who made a lesser mistake, paid the price, rebuilds their life and respects the law, then the State should not continue punishing them forever. That matters in real life. It matters to the young person trying to get a first job. It matters to the parent who wants to see a child stand tall again. It matters to the family who wants to move from worry to stability, and that is why as the Minister of Tertiary Education, Science and Research, I feel strongly about this Bill. Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I want to speak directly now to every young person who may have stumbled, learned, matured and changed. Your life is not over. Your future matters. And to every parent, your child must not be defined by one bad moment. It is a fact that parents believe children can grow. Parents believe children can learn. They can correct themselves. They can they can come back stronger. This Bill honours that belief. Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, for several young persons, the road from education to employment can sometimes be hard because it depends on internship, apprenticeship, placement, first job, technical training and research opportunities. One old and lesser offence can shut all those doors completely at once. This Bill helps them open again. Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, we cannot tell a young person, ‘improve yourself', but we will never recognise that improvement. That would be unjust. That would be short-sighted and it would waste precious national talent. Mauritius cannot afford to waste talent – not the talent of our students, not the talent of our graduates, not the talent of young people who are ready to work, who are ready to contribute and ready to move forward. Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, this Bill also introduces an important principle of fairness in employment. Where a conviction is not related to the job, it cannot be used to discriminate applicants. That is a very important message to employers and to the public. Because the right question is not that: has this person ever been convicted? The right question: is that conviction relevant to that job? This is fairness. This is common sense and this is justice with intelligence. The Bill says something better. It says to the graduate, do not give up. It says to the families, hope is still alive. It says to the nation, we can protect the public without giving up on our people. Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, a strong country is not one that punishes forever. A strong country is one that knows when punishment has done its work. A wise society is not one that confuses stigma and safety. A wise society is one that protects the public while still making room for redemption. That is what this Bill does. It protects society. It restores proportion. It supports employment. It helps students and young people move forward. It gives parents something precious – reassurance. Reassurance that the law can still be fair. Reassurance that the future is still open. Reassurance that one mistake does not have to be a life sentence of exclusion. Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, let this message be heard clearly across the nation. To the students watching, your future is bigger than your minor mistake. To the parents listening, your child is worth believing in. To the families across this country, there can be a second chapter. And to the nation, justice must protect, but justice must also lift. This is a sound Bill, a fair Bill, a humane Bill, and a necessary Bill. Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I would like to reassure all those concerned. I recently met a father, a mother and a son. The father is a fisherman. The mother is a housewife. They came to see me because – like my colleague, hon. Uteem, said, erreur de jeunesse – he could not secure a job. I told the parents to just wait and that soon this nightmare will be over. So, Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I, wholeheartedly, commend the Certificate of Character Bill to this House. Thank you.

Thank you. I suspend the sitting for half an hour. At 4.33 p.m., the Sitting was suspended. On resuming at 5.07 p.m. with Madam Speaker in the Chair.

C’est bon, you may be seated! Yes, hon. Minister of Gender, it is your turn!

Merci Madame la présidente. Madame la présidente, the Certificate of Character Bill est un projet de loi qui va changer des vies. Des changements concrets que les Mauriciennes et les Mauriciens vont ressentir dans leur vie, dans leur recherche d'emploi. Des milliers de personnes attendent ce moment depuis trop longtemps. Madame la présidente, quelque part à Maurice, aujourd'hui, une personne s'est rendue à un entretien d'embauche. Elle était préparée. Elle était qualifiée. Elle était prête. Mais, elle n'a pas obtenu le poste. Non pas parce qu'elle manquait de compétences, non pas parce qu'elle a échoué à l'entretien, mais à cause de quelque chose qu'elle a faite il y a 15 ans et pour laquelle elle a déjà payé, pour laquelle elle a purgé sa peine et payé peut-être une amende. Quelque chose qu'elle a depuis longtemps laissé derrière elle. Mais, son certificat de moralité en a décidé autrement et la porte s'est refermée. Et ce n'est pas un cas isolé. À travers toute l'île, la même scène se répète dans des foyers, des régions et des vies différentes. Le résultat est prévisible : le rejet, l'humiliation, l'exclusion. Non pas parce que cette personne représente un danger pour la société et qu'elle a récidivé mais parce qu'un système conçu pour protéger le public est, aujourd'hui, détourné de sa vocation et est utilisé pour stigmatiser définitivement des personnes, pour les marquer comme inaptes bien longtemps après qu'elles aient démontré le contraire. Ce n'est pas de la justice. C'est une double peine. Et c'est une peine qui frappe de manière disproportionnée les jeunes, les plus démunis et les rend incapables de s'en sortir. Et les conséquences ne s'arrêtent pas à l'individu. Elles se propagent. Les familles en souffrent. Lorsqu'un parent ne peut pas trouver du travail à cause d'une condamnation ancienne, ce sont les enfants qui en payent le prix. La suite, on la connaît. Précarité, instabilité et le sentiment que leur famille est d'une façon ou d'une autre marquée par l'État comme étant inférieur. Madame la présidente, ce projet de loi est une avancée concrète et soulagera des milliers de personnes qui ont besoin que la société leur accorde une seconde chance. Ce projet de loi vient corriger une situation injuste avec proportionnalité et humanité. D'abord, il prévoit que certaines condamnations mineures, sous condition et après un délai déterminé, ne figurent plus sur le certificat, permettant ainsi une véritable réinsertion. Ensuite, il consacre un principe fondamental. Une personne ne peut être discriminée à l'embauche pour une infraction sans lien avec l'emploi concerné. Madame la présidente, s'il est vrai que ce projet de loi modernise notre justice et ouvre de nouvelles perspectives, il est tout aussi vrai que notre devoir est de protéger les plus vulnérables, ceux qui sont sans défense, c'est-à-dire les enfants. La protection de l'enfant reste notre priorité absolue. Cette modernisation que nous apportons ne se fera jamais au détriment de la protection des enfants. Bien au contraire ! Et je salue le fait que ce projet de loi maintient avec fermeté l'obligation de faire apparaître sur le certificat de moralité toutes les condamnations liées à des infractions graves commises à l'encontre des enfants, notamment celles prévues dans le Children's Act 2020, l'abus sexuel, la prostitution des enfants, le grooming, la pornographie enfantine et l'enlèvement d'enfants, entre autres. Ce choix est fondamental. Il traduit une volonté claire et non négociable du gouvernement. Aucun compromis lorsqu'il s'agit de la sécurité, de la protection et du bien- être des enfants. En ma qualité de ministre responsable de la protection des enfants, je suis particulièrement attentive à la cohérence entre le Certificate of Character Bill et le Children's Act 2020. Ce dernier établit un cadre robuste pour la protection des mineurs. Le texte présenté par l'Attorney General vient renforcer ce cadre en s'assurant que les informations pertinentes demeurent accessibles chaque fois que la sécurité d'un enfant est en jeu. Madame la présidente, nous ouvrons une porte certes, mais nous ne baissons pas la garde. Madam Speaker, let us be clear. Mauritius is not reinventing the wheel. We are catching up with a global movement that has recognised for well over a decade that permanent criminal records are bad for individuals, families and society. Across the world, jurisdictions are embracing what is now widely known as clean slate legislation. In the US alone, more than 19 states have now enacted some form of automatic record clearing. Pennsylvania was the first in 2016. New York followed suit in 2024, automatically sealing misdemeanour convictions after three years, and felonies after eight, recognising that a person's past should not determine his or her future when he or she has demonstrated rehabilitation. Across continental Europe, the principle is universal. Justice must include the possibility of redemption. The evidence is compelling. Studies consistently show that post-conviction employment dramatically reduces recidivism. When a person finds work, they are far less likely to reoffend. Conversely, when employment is denied and the no door is permanently shut, despair sets in and the cycle of marginalisation continues. The economic argument is powerful. Cost benefit analysis indicates that clearing criminal records produce net benefits for society through increased tax revenues, reduced dependence on social assistance and lower costs to the criminal justice system. In a small island economy like Mauritius, every working adult matters. Every excluded citizen is a cost to all of us. Madam Speaker, as the Minister responsible for family welfare, I want one and all to understand that the damage done by an uncleared criminal record is never confined to one person. When a parent cannot find a stable job, children grow up in financial precarity. When a young person is repeatedly rejected by the job market, the risk of radicalisation, substance abuse and further offending arises. When families are trapped in poverty by the administrative stigma of an old conviction, the entire family unit is destabilised. These are the families that have recourse to our services, to our family support services. These are the stories our social workers hear every week. Madam Speaker, this Bill will not solve all our social challenges, but it removes one major unnecessary barrier that has been crushing the potential of too many of our citizens. For the Ministry of Gender Equality and Family Welfare, this is not merely a criminal justice reform. It is a family welfare reform. A social cohesion reform. My thoughts go to those young persons who have had an issue with the justice system, who have served their time and rebuilt their lives, but who keep on being excluded from the formal economy. Their families depend on their ability to find a decent job. This Bill gives them that opportunity. Madam Speaker, we believe in second chances and in the capacity of human beings to change. We believe that justice must be proportionate and that a society which permanently excludes its own citizens from economic life is a society that is failing itself. Madame la présidente, ce projet de loi est mesuré et responsable. Il n'efface pas les condamnations graves, ne diminue pas les droits des victimes et n'ouvre pas la porte à l'impunité. Ce qu'il fait avec discernement, c'est reconnaître que pour les infractions mineures, après qu'un délai suffisant se soit écoulé et que la réhabilitation ait été démontrée, l'État doit permettre aux gens d'avancer. Nous sommes une petite société, nous ne pouvons pas nous permettre de mettre définitivement de côté le potentiel humain et nous permettre le coût social de l'exclusion. Et nous ne pouvons pas, en toute conscience, continuer à maintenir un système qui punit les gens non pas pour ce qu'ils sont aujourd'hui, mais pour ce qu'ils étaient il y a des années. Je vous remercie.

Hon. Subron! (5.20 p.m.) The Minister of Social Integration, Social Security and National Solidarity (Mr A. Subron): Madam Speaker, this House is debating a critical piece of legislation. What we are debating today is deeply rooted within our own harsh history. This Bill aims at transcending the contradiction of the inherently inhuman history of our own society. A history of class exploitation, class bias, class prejudices and control. Today, we are heading towards a significant rehabilitation of all those from the lower class who have been victims of humiliations, prejudices, harassment, just because they were part of the working class and the poor layer of our society. How many of them have been denied an employment promotion just because they could not produce this piece of paper which was asked by the employer class? How many of them have been compelled to endure hardships just because they could not have this piece of paper or have convictions for which they already paid for, dated back several years ago, written on this famous piece of paper? Madam Speaker, given that many hon. Members articulately addressed the social reintegration dimension of the Bill for not convicting a second time somebody who has duly and legally paid for his sentence, I fully align myself to their views. For my part, I will contribute to the debate by highlighting the historical and class dimension of the issues being raised and addressed by this Bill. Madam Speaker, many eminent historians consider the practice of requiring documents like a Certificate of Character, formerly, the Certificate of Morality, to be a legacy of our colonial control systems, which directly followed the abolition of slavery in Mauritius. While it is true that the modern certificate is a standard legal document, its historical roots in Mauritius are undeniably tied to the transition from slavery system to indentured labour and colonial legacy. During the slavery era, enslaved people were physically tagged or were subjected to various forms of identifications to maintain control and enforce property rights of slave owners. If they were found outside their boundaries, they could be arrested, punished or executed for marronage. Underwater archaeology near shipwrecks such as Le Coureur, wrecked in 1821, has yielded metal identification tags used during the slavery era. After slavery was abolished in 1835, the colonial government introduced vagrancy laws to ensure a steady supply of cheap labour for sugar estates. These laws criminalised idleness and introduced the famous ‘rogue and vagabond’ charge. If a formerly enslaved person or indentured labourer could not prove they were under a valid labour contract or outside their zone, they were arrested as vagrants. To avoid arrest and secure employment, workers had to provide proof of their good conduct or morality to the new employers. This is the ancestral origin of the Certificate of Morality. This is what evolved into an administrative practice where the police or the Director of Public Prosecutions verify that a person had not been a maroon or a vagrant. The Truth and Justice Commission argues that these requirements stem from the logic of surveillance, the afterlife of slavery, used to maintain a disciplined and moral workforce in a society where labour was once forced. Let me refer to a few of our eminent historians. For Dr. Vijaya Teelock, I quote – “Every economic system aims to find cheap and disciplined labour. Thus, the concepts of marronage during slavery and vagrancy during indenture both sought to control the movement of slaves and indentured labourers.” Dr. Teelock adds – “Through vagrancy laws, the colonial authorities prevented “free labour competition” whereby labourers would go around estates to assess which one had the best working conditions. The most substantial remnants of vagrancy heritage can be found in Grand River North West, where the vagrant depot lies. Legally, the concept of vagrancy still survives in the Criminal Code under the terms of ‘idle’ or ‘rogue and vagabond’.” Second, in forbidden freedom, the experience of vagrants at the vagrant depot of Grand River North West and other vagrants in British Mauritius, referenced 1879 to 1905. Satyendra Peerthum, researcher at Aapravasi Ghat Trust Fund, notes that under colonial laws, a vagrant was someone with no valid pass, who did not have a permanent place of abode, or who was not working under a labour contract. Madam Speaker, the Mauritius Truth and Justice Commission concluded that contemporary discrimination, including class discrimination, is not an accident, but a direct legacy of the logic of control established during the colonial era to manage enslaved and indentured populations. Today, the certificate is framed as a security measure to protect workplaces. However, the debate remains that the high pressure to present a clean certificate for even basic labour reflects a historical distrust of the working class rooted in the colonial period. Madam Speaker, in 2006, the administrative practice inherited from our history for employers’ clearance from the police or the DPP to verify that a person is clean was henceforth regulated. The Certificate of Morality Act was voted to make better provision for the issue of Certificate of Morality by the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions. It was introduced by the then Attorney General and Minister of Justice and Human Rights, the then hon. Rama Valayden. The law made the request to issue a Certificate of Morality a right of the person, not the employer. Without challenging the very practice of employers requesting such certificate for employment purposes. In year 2012, a new law replacing the Certificate of Morality by the current Certificate of Character was enacted. Besides for the first time listing the various types of offences which would appear on a Certificate of Character, the major feature of this law was the fact of the codification, for the first time in our history, of the very practice of employers seeking clearance certificate for their employees. While in the first law, the Certificate of Morality, it was the citizen who had the sole right to apply for such a certificate, the present law, which we are changing right now, introduced the principle of an employer applying for a Certificate of Character on behalf of a worker. Section 4(3) of the present law stipulates that an employer may with the written consent of a worker, apply for the issue of a certificate in the name of the worker. Now, Madam Speaker, one might argue that the employer would need with the written consent of a worker but anyone who knows the world of work would agree that no worker seeking a job or a promotion from an employer would be in a position not to give such a consent. So, it established a de facto power of employer to apply for the certificate. The present law is reminiscent of our slavery, indentured and colonial history. It indeed reflects a historical distrust of the working class rooted in the colonial period. Before coming directly to the Bill in this House, let me highlight a few fundamental facts. Or let me now move to the other side of the coin. If it was a practice for centuries till now, for companies, employers to seek from someone from the working class to prove himself to be sound and certified with the correct morality or character to have a basic right for employment, the same was not true and still to a large extent not applicable to the owner of capital, proprietor of local companies or the designated directors. As if there is a superhuman-privileged class, a subhuman class or social group in our society. In times of slavery, slave owners were considered superhuman and had nothing to justify. They derived the superhuman power from the Code noir during the French period and from British slavery laws from 1811 to 1835. In times of indenture, the propertied class were considered as subhuman by the law and other subhuman but subject to vagrant, idle, rogue and vagabond laws. Madam Speaker, today's society still bear the scars of old days. This is the truth. This is our truth. For example, the Companies Law – no such clearance of a Certificate of Morality or Character is needed for any shareholder or higher management of companies. Section 337 of the Companies Act 2010 prohibits some categories of persons from managing companies but it does not require a Certificate of Morality or Character and offenses listed therein. True, in recent years, foreign companies, especially in financial sectors, are required a Certificate of Character and are subject to due diligence, but same does not apply for the quasi majority of employers operating in Mauritius. The ethic of our laws is still class biased and class discriminate. It upholds that those who detain capital, the means of protection, even if they are rapists, misogynists or criminals, are persons of high morality or character. While those who are from the working class, the poor and lower strata, are de facto potential criminals and stigmatised. Madam Speaker, let me directly come to the Bill we are debating today. The present Bill, while it does not eliminate the very principle of employers requesting Certificate of Character from an employee, nevertheless fundamentally limits, alters or even nullifies its application. First, the Bill repeals the present section of the Certificate of Character Act, whereby an employer may, with the written consent of a worker, apply for the issue of a certificate in the name of the worker. This section is simply eliminated. Bravo, hon. Attorney General. Second, the new Bill introduces a significant proviso on the usage of the Certificate of Character by prospective employer. Section 4 on non-discrimination in employment provide – “Where a person's Certificate of Character specifies that he has been convicted of a crime or misdemeanour – (a) his employer shall not discriminate against him where the crime or misdemeanour is not related to the employment; or (b) his prospective employer shall not discriminate against him where the crime or misdemeanour is not related to the employment for which he is being considered.” Third, the Bill introduced not only non-discrimination clauses in the application of the Certificate of Employment, but the Bill provides the mechanism for the enforcement of this section. In section 12, consequential amendment, the Equal Opportunities Act is amended in section 10(1) by inserting where subject to 10(2), that a person's Certificate of Character certified that he has been convicted of a crime or misdemeanour, which is not related to his employment or to the employment for which is he is considered, thus reinforcing the application of the non-discrimination clause. Fourth, the Bill fundamentally alters the very consent of the Certificate of Character by substantially limiting the offenses to be listed in the first schedule, eliminate small fines up to Rs50,000 and provides changes in line with a more human dignity consideration. Madam Speaker, I have focused my intervention and contribution to the debate on social historical and employment related angle, given my trade union activist experiences but I cannot, as Minister of Social Integration, not salute the twin fundamental dimension of this Bill. That is the great qualitative leap forwards in terms of social reintegration of persons who already have paid for their convictions. A conviction given at any moment in one's life can never be transformed in a form of life sentence by society. Let me again say kudos to the hon. Attorney General and my colleagues of the Cabinet to contribute to bring such a positive Bill in this Assembly. It is this type of initiative which make me and my party to be proud to be in this Government. It is it is this kind of legislation which honours the hundreds of thousands of people who have voted for us in the last general election. To them, we owe our seat in this Assembly. To them, we are here to serve. Thank you, Madam Speaker.

Thank you and thank you for keeping the time. (5.38 p.m.)

Thank you, Madam Speaker. I will also try my best, even though I have never been known for someone who is a very good pupil when it comes to that, to sticking to time. So, I rise, Madam Speaker…

Just at look me in the eyes.

That is the dangerous part. You know, that is the dangerous part. That would sidetrack me, please. So, Madam Speaker, I rise in support of this Certificate of Character Bill. I have heard all those who have intervened before me, be it at the last Sitting and today. And they have expatiated upon the very positives in this Bill; the idea, the object, the philosophy. I shall not go into that much detail, but allow me to add the following. This is at its heart a Bill about balance. Accountability matters, but rehabilitation also matters. Where a person has served his sentence, stayed within the law and tried to rebuild his life, the law should not impose needless and indefinite obstacles to work in dignity. That is not leniency. That is justice properly understood. Crucially, Madam Speaker, this Bill is not soft on crime. The First Schedule still requires mandatory disclosure of serious offenses, including murder, manslaughter, rape, child sexual abuse, child pornography, trafficking in persons, financing of terrorism, bribery, money laundering and arson. Lesser and dated convictions may in defined circumstances no longer block a person's future. Serious offending remains visible. That is responsible lawmaking. And so, I commend the hon. Attorney General for this excellent piece of legislation and the officers of his office. Now, Madam Speaker, I have listened very carefully to hon. Subron, the one who preceded me, and he talked, he painted this historical picture of the source of the Certificate of Character. Allow me to say, and I will add my little piece to it, if I may. So, the very expression certificat de moralité comes from continental, specifically French, legal and administrative tradition. In French and francophone legal systems, the long-standing instrument was certificat de bonne vie et mœurs; a document attesting to a person's good conduct and moral standing. The Dictionnaire de l'Académie Française defines it as a certificate attesting the good conduct and morality of an individual. In its original sense, this was not a criminal record. It was not a criminal record check. It was a moral attestation, often issued by the local official, a mayor, a parish priest, vouching for the good reputation, good conduct and good morals of the person. In 19th century France, for example, the mayor delivered the obligatory certificat de moralité required for school teachers under Loi Guizot of 1833 and Loi Falloux of 1850. Now, in Mauritius, we inherited this concept through its French, our French legal tradition which survived the British takeover of 1810 in the form of the Code Napoléon and a deep base of French civil and administrative practice. The expression certificat de moralité therefore entered Mauritian usage from this francophone administrative culture, even as the colony became British. I would like to add on this historical part, a doctoral thesis on Freemasonry in Mauritius from 1778 to 1950 records the following: by the 19th century, the certificat de moralité was used in Mauritius as a substitute for the casier judiciaire. The criminal record, le Grand Orient, was informed that the certificat de moralité replaced the casier judiciaire in Mauritius. This is a crucial point. In Mauritius, the certificat de moralité fused two different ideas: the French moral attestation and the criminal record check into a single document. So, this is, for my part, a little part of history that I think it is important to put in context. However, there is something else that I hold very dearly and allow me to share this. There is one further point, Madam Speaker, that the House cannot ignore. In Mauritius, as has been expatiated and gone in detail by many of my colleagues before me, a certificate of character, or as it was known then, a certificat de moralité, is required for many employments in the public sector. I have been on the website of the Ministry of Agro Industry; I have spoken to the Minister. You need a clean certificat de moralité, it says, if you want enn kart pêcheur. Yes, the website says that.

Tout dépend de ce qu'on comprend par pêcheur!

Tout dépend de ce qu'on comprend par clean!

(Interruptions)

Can you imagine? What do you have to deal with? A certificate of character is required for a wide range of ordinary permits, licences, modest jobs, a hawker's card, permit marchand ambulant, an employment, even planteur. Even planteur! I mean, I would understand for those who were dabbling into the art of planting. But planteur, well, has nothing to do with what we were used to during the last regime of planting. That has nothing to do with it. Now, a general worker, a refuse collector, as was said by hon. Babajee –you said that with avec raison – yet, allow me to say that the law as it stands today for us, in this Assembly, does not require a certificate of morality. No! So, even if we are to commit an offence, not even before, but even after, or whilst we are in this Assembly, and that offence has nothing to do with electoral dishonesty; that itself has a time within which you can enter the matter and there is a limit, a statutory provided limit. We are the untouchables. But if it is money laundering, if it is rape, if it is anything of the sort, the law does not provide that we can be disqualified while we are members of the House. So, the question, therefore, has to be answered. I say it because it is an opportunity for us to show that we are here for change, Madam Speaker. This is the mandate upon which we were brought to power and we have not forgotten that. Why is it that we are to forget something so obvious? How is it, therefore, that the man that has to toil away, sweat, be the hawker, be the planter, be the fisherman, he has higher standards to adhere to, whereas us, law makers, we have no standards! There is a serious problem. So, I call therefore upon my colleague Ministers responsible for every single part there to look into this matter because it has to be sorted out. So, the most modest forms of work demand the cleanest records, while the highest legislative office is governed by far more lenient standard. That asymmetry is itself unfair. This Bill begins to correct it. So, from there, we have to build upon it. A man seeking to push a hawker's cart, take to sea as a fisherman, or sweep our streets, should not, Madam Speaker, face heavier lifelong consequences for entering an honest trade than a politician faces for entering this Chamber. Fairness must begin where life is hardest, not where it is easiest. This is what I call change. That is what this Bill does. It preserves disclosure for serious offending. It removes unnecessary obstacles for lesser and dated convictions. It protects youth offenders. It forbids irrelevant discrimination in hiring and it brings a measure of justice to the citizens who have, until now, carried the heaviest burden of the present law. Madam Speaker, this Bill is fair in principle, careful in design and humane in effect. It is balanced. It is overdue and it deserves the full support of this House. I commend the Certificate of Character Bill to the House.

Thank you so much. You are all doing so well in terms of time. Yes, hon. Attorney General! I will again say it is time for your winding-up speech. (5.48 p.m.) The Attorney General (Mr G. P. C. Glover, SC): Madam Speaker, last week, perchance, I learned of the story of a gentleman, now in his mid-40s and who works as an accountant in the private sector, but who has been plagued by a certificate of character exhibiting a conviction for a simple larceny for which he was fined. The offence was committed when he had just turned 18. Almost 30 years ago. With the advent of this new legislation, this gentleman will now, after such a long time, be able to hold his head high and apply for jobs he would never dream of going for, was it not for the novel provisions of the Certificate of Character Bill. Madam Speaker, this is the measure of the impact this law will have on the lives of hundreds, if not of thousands of Mauritians, cutting across generations, giving hope to people from all walks of life. That being said, Madam Speaker, I need to set the record straight. I do not think that anyone has noticed it, but during my intervention two weeks ago, while setting out the conditions which will lead to certain convictions disappearing from a certificate of character, I said that in cases where the prison sentence did not exceed five years, that conviction would disappear after 10 years. That was obviously incorrect as the Bill provides that it is only in cases of a conviction which leads to a prison sentence of not more than three years that will disappear after 10 years. Of course, this is subject to that offence not being listed in the First Schedule. Madam Speaker, the importance of this law, this other piece of the jigsaw puzzle we have been putting together for the past 16 months, has been underscored by the number of Members of the House who have intervened. This House has heard from the Leader of the Opposition that he supports the principle underlying the Bill, although he had qualms about the administrative problems that he says would ensue. He spoke of the impracticability of the process presumably because the Bill does not depict exactly how the process will work. Let me enlighten the House on this issue. You see, Madam Speaker, mindful of the fact that we are innovating and increasing the workload of the Police and the Office of the DPP, the Bill provides at clause 7 the answer. It provides in that clause that the Attorney General may make regulations in consultation with the DPP to regulate applications for a certificate of character and to provide for matters connected and incidental thereto. Not matters relevant thereto. In relation thereto, a term which I use here advisedly, as will become apparent in a few minutes, I have to inform the House that I have had consultations with the Director of Public Prosecutions and the Commissioner of Police, whom I met only yesterday, and we discussed the setting up of a clear process for applications. Although it will not be possible to draw strict timelines, we shall endeavour to make things happen in a transparent and effective manner. The regulations to be made will reflect this. As things stand, Madam Speaker, an application for a certificate is either made online or in person, at the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions, or at any of the divisional headquarters of the Police. I am informed that there are on average around, hear this one, 9,000 applications monthly.

Monthly?

A third of those are made online and the rest in person. Assuming the application is in order and the required documents submitted, there is a three-stage process which encompasses – (i) a review at the divisional headquarters; (ii) a verification at the Crime Records Office of the Police, and finally (iii) a full assessment at the Office of the DPP. Delays may occur if applications are incomplete or contain inconsistent or insufficient information, or if a statement has to be taken by the Police from the applicant. Now, for those who do not have a criminal record, I am told that the waiting time is approximately four to six weeks. For those who have criminal records, the process might take up to three months. However, we cannot and we should not close our eyes to the obvious surge of applications which will occur as soon as the law will come into force. And that is why we have provided that the law will come into force upon proclamation, that is, at a time when the system will be ready to take on the increased load. So much for the administrative process. There are three other important issues, Madam Speaker, which must be addressed, lest people will be left in the dark. First, with regard to what the Leader of the Opposition has described as the structural ambiguity besetting Clause 4 of the Bill, ‘Non-discrimination in employment’. He found fault with the terminology used in that, and so goes his argument, the words related to the employment is open to debate and is not defined well enough. But that Clause 4, Madam Speaker, must be read in conjunction with Clause 12, which deals with the consequential amendment to the Equal Opportunities Act. In the existing Equal Opportunities Act, Section 10(1)(f) provides that – “(1) No employer or prospective employer shall discriminate against another person – (…) (f) where subject to subsection(2), that person has a criminal record which is irrelevant to the nature of employment for which that person is being considered.” So, in the present Bill, we have moved from a test of relevance to the nature of employment, which is to my mind subjective and rather wide, to one which is stricter. The words being now used are “in relation to”, connoting a more objective test of connectivity. That is why I meant earlier on when I said, “in relation to” was being used advisedly. Here, as in all laws, the balancing exercise is paramount. On the one hand, there is the need to afford adequate protection to the employee or prospective employee, and on the other, we cannot tie the hands of the employer altogether. As I am on the Equal Opportunities Act, let me place on record that we are in presence of a paper from the Law Reform Commission, published late last year, entitled ‘Strengthening the Powers of the Equal Opportunities Commission’. Thereafter, the Commission was requested by the Prime Minister's Office to give its views on this paper, and it did just that in December last. These are being looked at and it will not be long before we come before the House with amendments to revamp the law in line with Paragraph 9 of the Government Programme 2025-2029. The stated objective there, Madam Speaker, was and still is, and I quote – “To ensure the principles of meritocracy and non-discrimination in employment are upheld, Government will strengthen the powers of the Equal Opportunities Commission.” This Government, Madam Speaker, will thus honour another commitment it took and fulfil a promise it made to the people. Second, the Presidential Commission on the Prerogative of Mercy. The House has heard about Section 75 of the Constitution. What ensued, unfortunately, can only be described as a méli-mélo, culminating with the First Member of Constituency No. 10, Montagne Blanche- Grand River South East, asking four questions which, if I may say so, are, unfortunately, based on an infelicitous reading of Clause 5 of the Bill. Clause 5 of the Bill, which is entitled ‘Certificate of character with no criminal record’, provides for circumstances which may lead to a clean certificate being issued by the DPP. One of the set of circumstances provided for concerns the case of someone who has been convicted of an offence but who has already obtained a free pardon by the President, acting on the advice of the Presidential Commission on the Prerogative of Mercy. That person will be issued with a clean Certificate of Character, irrespective of whether the conviction for which he obtained the free pardon was one listed in the First Schedule. That is what the law says and nothing else – that is Clause 5 (1) (b). In contradistinction, Clause 5(1) (c) of the Bill provides that the one who has been convicted of an offence and given an absolute or conditional discharge will not have a clean certificate if the offence is one which is listed in the First Schedule. There resides the difference. To go back to the questions put by the hon. Member, with due respect, they are irrelevant, being premised on an erroneous understanding of what Clause 5 (1) (b) of the Bill provides.

C'est compliqué!

Third, Madam Speaker…

Monsieur le ministre, c'est un peu compliqué pour les non-juristes, honnêtement !

I am talking of the First Member for Constituency No. 10.

Yes, yes.

Third, Madam Speaker, previous convictions. The Police is the authority which, through its Criminal Records Office, gathers and stores data relating to previous convictions. The question raised is: what effect will the provisions of this Bill ultimately have on the criminal record of an individual? The short answer is, none. Why? Because precisely the operation of the provisions of this Bill is not akin to a free pardon, which is when your conviction is erased from the criminal record system, as if you have never committed any crime. The Certificate of Character is an administrative document which is issued according to the provisions of the law for non-judicial use. You cannot use same in a court of law. If someone has a clean certificate by operation of the provisions of this Bill, the conviction and sentence concerned will no longer appear on the Certificate of Character. But should he, for example, commit another offence, the court will have to look at any of his previous convictions, including the one which no longer appears on the certificate, because it will still appear on the criminal record at the Police. Madam Speaker, I hope I have cleared the air for all, especially for those who supported the Bill in principle and agreed that it was a step in the right direction, but who, nonetheless, fell short of commending the Bill. In sharp contradiction with the First Member of Constituency No. 10, who candidly commended the Bill to the House. With these words, Madam Speaker, I commend the Bill to the House. Question put and agreed to. Bill read a second time and committed. COMMITTEE STAGE THE CERTIFICATE OF CHARACTER BILL (NO. II OF 2026) (Madam Speaker in the Chair) Clauses 1 to 14 ordered to stand part of the Bill. First Schedule Motion made and question proposed; “that the First Schedule stand part of the Bill.”

Madam Chairperson, I move for the following amendments the First Schedule – “In the First Schedule – (a) in item 6, in the third column – (i) by deleting the following sections and their corresponding entries – 301 Larceny 330B Issuing cheque without provision Hindering public works by force (ii) by inserting, in the appropriate numerical order, the following new sections and their corresponding entries – Offences by public officers Having offensive weapon at unlawful assembly 230(2) Assault – premeditation or lying in wait Assault upon father or mother Giving false evidence in case of misdemeanour Deceiving purchaser Damaging property by band Poisoning animal (b) in item 15, in the third column, by deleting the following section and its corresponding entry – International terrorism”. Amendment agreed to. First Schedule, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill. Second Schedule ordered to stand part of the Bill. Third Schedule ordered to stand part of the Bill The title and enacting clause ordered to stand part of the Bill. The Bill, as amended, was agreed to. On the Assembly resuming with Madam Speaker in the Chair, Madam Speaker reported accordingly Third Reading On motion made and seconded, the Certificate of Character Bill (No. II of 2026) was read a third time and passed. ADJOURNMENT

Madam Speaker, I beg to move that this Assembly do now adjourn to Tuesday 12 May 2026 at 11:30 a.m. Dr. Boolell rose and seconded. Question put and agreed to.

The House stands adjourned! It is Tuesday next. At 6.04 p.m., the Assembly was, on its rising, adjourned to Tuesday 12 May 2026 at 11:30 a.m. WRITTEN ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS FREEDOM OF INFORMATION BILL – PROPOSED INTRODUCTION