Wiggle ?

Richard Ottoway MP may get more than a footnote in future histories of the BBC World Service.  His lead in yesterday's debate calling for the Foreign Office to review the scale of cuts was a model of polite yet firm criticism of the strategy.   And, though only 20 or so MPs were present for the 80 minute session, he caught the mood with his plea that the re-think should be constructive; "The House of Commons is serious about this, and I hope the the Foreign Office will be as well".

Foreign Office Minister David Lidington, whilst not as stonewall as his boss William Hague, hinted at marginal wiggle room. His department will push to see if a proportion of WS funding can be deemed "developmental" under international aid rules, thus qualifying for cash from the coffers of the Department for International Development.

But he also kept pushing back at the BBC - saying by FCO calculations, there ought to be £4m available from reduced pension payments, which could be used to re-instate cuts to Mandarin, Hindi and Arabic; and that BBC had yet to reveal proposals for commercial income.  Indeed, tensions between the FCO and World Service were clear throughout Lidington's response.  He said the World Service Board was bigger and better paid than the FCO board - despite running a much smaller budget.  He complained that there was little detail in the World Service's proposed administrative cuts and plans to share more facilities; and called for more transparency.

The debate on this issue in print has reach stalemate; William Hague got his retaliation in first on Wednesday, restating that the World Service deal was "challenging but fair"; Peter Horrocks wrote to The Times yesterday denying the charge that the BBC had been "opaque in explaining its finances".    Now we need some urgent work by someone to ease the stand-off.  Please step forward, Lord Patten - and quick.

• The debate starts here, at around 1340. Lidington's response is at around 1438