The recent constitutional amendments, approved unanimously by the House, were the result of mature, behind-the-scenes talks between the government and Opposition.

Maturity was shown in the sense that the government did not insist on its original proposal that any recommendations regarding judicial appointments were to be purely advisory, accepting an Opposition proposal that if the Prime Minister were to alter such a recommendation, he would be bound to make a public statement before the House of Representatives.

With politics being the art of the possible, a compromise was reached.

This reminded me of the constitutional changes, prior to the 1987 elections, when then PN leader Eddie Fenech Adami wisely and astutely accepted the foreign interference and neutrality provisions in our Constitution in exchange for the entrenched majority rule in our supreme law.

As writer Kilin once observed, describing that event and applying a chess metaphor, Fenech Adami gave up the rook to capture the queen piece.

The amendments affect three main areas: first of all, any judicial appointments from now on will be the result of a recommendation by a Judicial Appointments Committee composed of the Chief Justice, the Attorney General, the president of the Chamber of Advocates, the Auditor General and the Ombudsman.

One may remark cynically that the government proposed this change only following certain embarrassing decisions regarding the appointments of members of the judiciary, but it is a change which is beneficial to the country as a whole.

I believe that a good, even if not perfect, agreement has been reached by the two political parties

The Opposition was initially against accepting such amendment unless the Prime Minister was to be bound by such a recommendation. A compromise was reached, emulating the procedure introduced by a Nationalist government in 1995 whereby the assignment of duties of judges and magistrates is entrusted to the Chief Justice, who gives advice to the justice minister.

If the minister disagrees with such advice, he must make a public statement in Parliament.

This put a stop to previous, pre-1987 abuses by the government in shifting judges from their positions following the delivery of awkward judgments against it, as happened in October 1976 with the demotion of that brilliant Maltese jurist, Maurice Caruana Curran, from the Constitutional Court to a court of first instance.

Secondly, and of even more interest, is the introduction of new disciplinary rules regarding the judiciary. Up till now, a member of the judiciary could only be disciplined in one way: by impeachment and removal. There was no half measure such as temporary suspension, warning, reprimand, administrative fine, etc.

In 1994, a Nationalist government tried to introduce these disciplinary measures short of impeachment by proposing an amendment to the Constitution. The then Labour Opposition replied that it would not support any entrenchment of such a provision in the Constitution. A polite way of saying no.

The government then had to change its constitutional amendment, removing the disciplinary part from its proposals. It is refreshing to observe that, 20 years later, the very party which opposed such a reform has now proposed it. The Nationalist opposition, consistent with its position on the matter, voted in favour of the measure.

Thirdly, the general financial conditions for members of the judiciary, including their pension rights, have been significantly improved, following, one must say, a general agreement reached with the judiciary by then justice minister Chris Said prior to the 2013 elections, which fell apart following the untimely disruption of the legislature in December 2012.

In fact, in October 2012, Said published Bill No. 122 proposing the reform.

The government did the right thing in proposing the package again to attract the right legal professionals to one of the most important offices ofthe State. In fact, the new Members of the Judiciary (Pensions) Act 2016 is a faithful copy of Bill No. 122.

I remember the older members of the legal profession giving me advice in 1980 when I set foot in the law courts to the effect that “a bad compromise agreement is better than a good judgment”.

I believe that a good, even if not perfect, agreement has been reached by the two political parties that have managed to rise to the occasion and deliver on proposals intended to make the judiciary more efficient, accountable and responsible.

Tonio Borg is a former deputy prime minister and European commissioner.