Could the coalition fall at the last pensions hurdle?

At last night's second reading of the Pensions Bill Iain Duncan Smith and Steve Webb gave two tantilising hints of softer reforms.

In this Bill the big issue is the fate of the 500,000 women born in 1954 who, thanks to the accelerated state pension age (SPA) rise, will face up to an extra two years before they can claim their pension, with little notice.

The opposition has campaigned hard on the matter, which has plenty of pathos. Poster-girls of the campaign are the grandmothers who have not been able, due to low-paid work and child-rearing, to make much private pension saving.

These women, the opposition says, have worked hard, earned little and reared generation Y only to have their pensions postponed, first in 1995, and again now.

The coalition at first would not be swayed. However, the nine-week wait between the first and second readings of the bill made it clear something was afoot.

Rumours of a battle of wills between the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) and the Treasury ran amok. Some said the SPA would rise to 66 and four months in 2024 instead, but this was denied by the DWP.

Last night's debate, however, gave us two important hints IDS and Webb are losing their hard streak.

IDS said the government is willing to set up "transitional arrangements" at a later stage to help women hit hardest by the Bill.

Evidently, Steve Webb's assertion a few months ago these women could claim job seekers' allowance was not quite good enough.

Later, Labour's Frank Field said raising SPAs is unfair for people who entered manual work early in life and are not physically capable of working to 68.

Surprisingly, Webb agreed, and said the government should use National Insurance and tax records to find people who started work at 15 or 16 and make special provision for them.

These are odd admissions for a government which placed simplicity above all else. Whilst the essential reforms of this Bill are designed to sweep complexity away, giving concessions now will have the opposite effect.

These "transitional arrangements", it is rumoured, will take the form of extra credit for fifty-something women. Working out SPAs based on when someone entered the workplace was will be a major actuarial project. There is nothing simple there.

All governments strain to make pensions simpler, but get bogged down by the human element. Could the coalition losing its nerve on pension reform?