The rules of the House of Representatives provide for what may be called private members' initiatives. Meaning that MPs other than ministers and parliamentary secretaries can move motions and present Bills for consideration by the House. Whether the initiative actually makes it to the business of the House - that is, whether it is ever considered - essentially depends on the government side.

Governments traditionally tend to narrow the main space for such private initiatives. The public does not question why the House practically never meets on Thursdays. That is because when the House meets on Thursdays opposition and government backbench MPs are allowed to present private Bills for consideration without the agreement or say-so of the Leader of the House and his colleagues.

Last week, the House did act on a private initiative. Opposition member Leo Brincat presented a private motion and the government side put it forward for discussion.

The motion covered climate change. Mr Brincat and the opposition felt that the matter is serious enough to warrant regulation through legislation.

That was the central point of the motion but, as always in such matters, the debate ranged over a wider space than the thrust point. In general it was a good, crisp discussion. The habit of taking a partisan stance crept in as it always does. But the dominant feature was the good sense generally displayed by those who participated in it.

Allowing for some play to the gallery, the Finance Minister and the minister responsible for energy (to keep their title short) took the opportunity to visit the government's plans for energy generation over the next 10 years or so.

They reminded the House, and thereby the public, that the government intends to move away from dependency on oil derivatives for energy generation to replace that by gas. To do so would require expensive link ups with the European mainland via seabed pipeline connections with Sicily. Yet, so the government holds, that would be worthwhile both in terms of final cost as well as in the context of environmental considerations.

The opposition did not express deep disagreement with the underlying technical considerations put forward by the government. Essentially, via Mr Brincat, it insisted that the issue was serious enough to be regulated by a specific Act of Parliament. The government side did not agree with that particular point. A vote was taken and, as practically always, the government side won it.

I feel that the fact that the motion had to come to a vote was a pity. The debate on it served a good purpose. Mr Brincat did well to move it and the government is to be credited with giving mostly technical answers. The matter did not need to come to a vote. House precedent, I believe, allows for a motion to be talked out. Thereby it permits the government and the opposition sides to air their views, which in such instance can tend to converge substantially, and then leave the matter hanging. No partisan-led conclusion is reached.

The issue can continue to be discussed outside the House on a technical level.

I am a firm believer that democracy depends on the clash and contrast of ideas. Without that dynamic, public debate and action would stagnate. Yet, I also believe that there is an area where broad consensus is possible. Just now it is being epitomised through the persona of George Abela for President. That should light the way to awareness that more consensus is possible, without diminishing the clash and contrast of opposing ideas.

Private members' initiatives, which are considered objectively, without thought or fear of partisanship, can help identify and increase that space. That is why such initiatives would not be privately divisive. They could contribute to an extension of the common good.