Last week, Government announced the appointment of Milton Scott as Director of Labour in the Ministry of Home Affairs.

Mr. Scott was heralded by Minister Randy Horton as supremely qualified for the post. Not only had he been secretary general of the Bermuda Union of Teachers, he had been head of human resources at Stevedoring Services, giving him an unusual insight into both sides of the labour-employer relationship. So far, so good.

But Mr. Scott had also been Government Senate Leader and Minister of Education for a short period. This, Mr. Horton said, meant he also had an insight into Government's role in the tripartite relationship between Government, employers and employees.

Well, yes, that's true, too. What was not said was how Mr. Scott intends to ensure that he will uphold the impartiality of the Civil Service, which must be prepared to serve whichever political master happens to hold power in the Legislature.

This is not a principle that should be taken lightly. As 1998 showed, Bermudian voters will change the party in power, no matter how long they have been in office. If the UBP were to win the next election, would Mr. Scott be able to serve it as well as will presumably serve the current government? And would the UBP feel comfortable having Mr. Scott in a key post?

It is true that former civil servants have later represented both political parties. But there has never been a suggestion that they were impartial while in office. Indeed, Bermuda may be the only country in the world to have a Ministry in which the Minister and the Permanent Secretary are brothers ? the Island's small size necessitates some conflicts of interest that would never be allowed elsewhere.

No one reasonably expects civil servants to have no political beliefs at all, but they are expected to leave them at home.

In 1998, senior civil servants in particular were justly proud of the fact that they handled the transition in government. It was done reasonably seamlessly, and that was surely due in part to the standards for impartiality that had long been set in the Civil Service.

It is true that a great many senior civil servants who were in place in 1998 are now long gone. In some cases, they chose to make the change, while in others, they were either cut out or could not adapt to a new set of masters; albeit often for personal, rather than political reasons.

Their replacements have, to an unprecedented degree, come from outside the ranks of the Civil Service. There is nothing wrong with that; indeed people with fresh ideas who are imbued with the demands for efficiency that the private sector demands can be valuable for a public service that could otherwise become rigidly bureaucratic, backed by the notion that public finances are a bottomless well.

But care needs to be taken to ensure that civil servants do not end up feeling that their own career ambitions are stifled, or that people get top jobs on the basis of who they know or because of past political service rather than on their merits.

In Mr. Scott's case, there is no suggestion that he will show bias. At Stevedoring Services, he apparently showed neither fear nor favour to his fellow trade unionists on the docks and all of that suggests that he will be equally careful not to try to set or advance a particular political viewpoint in his new post.

But it does point up the need for a policy to handle former politicians who later enter the public service. At the very least, there should be a waiting period between the time the politician leaves public office (or seeks office as a candidate) and the time when they apply for a civil service post. And the Public Service Commission should take great care in these cases to ensure that no political influence has been exercised in the appointment.

Mr. Scott would probably meet both tests. He has been out of active politics since before the 2003 General Election and there has been no suggestion that his appointment has been politically motivated. Still, because Caesar's wife must not only be pure, but must be seen to be pure as well, it would be sensible to make sure the public knows that there has been no political influence in this case.