OUR story of Guernsey’s so-called ‘forgotten widows’ on page 3 today is one likely to arouse sympathy in many quarters.

Women, whose husbands were the only breadwinners within their household but who find themselves alone and aged below 65 – the stage at which they are entitled to claim a state pension in their own right – can now find themselves facing an uncertain future.

It is now seven years on from the States’ decision in 2004 to make bereavement benefits ‘gender neutral’  and to block any challenges of discrimination within the system. And for some women, the reality of that move is kicking in.

Any who chose not to work or pay a full stamp, because they believed their husbands’ contributions would see them through if necessary to 65, are now likely to  be struggling with money worries as well as bereavement.

News that two deputies are taking up their case  with the Assembly is overdue, although how successful that campaign will be remains unclear.

One hurdle will be that Social Security’s landmark decision, ratified by States members at the time, is in line with practices in other countries in  Europe. The department will also argue that for those affected in this way there is supplementary benefit available. Although unlikely to be as much, it is nevertheless a safety net.

Just how many widowed women there are without dependant children who opted not to pay their stamp before these agreed 2004 changes came in has not been revealed.

But what is clear is that this unfortunate person’s case is a warning of how the benefits system may no longer be reliable as public spending is constantly tightened and the legal and benefits landscape evolves beyond all recognition from previous generations.

Women who were quite within their rights to exercise the option of relying on this financial lifeline for their future have found the situation drastically changed from when they made that original decision. Instead, some find themselves trapped in a pensions nightmare.

All benefit change decisions have their casualties and such stories drive home the true human cost.

What is particularly tragic is the thought of those husbands who, trusting the system they signed up to would endure, paid into the public purse for years precisely to ensure their spouses would be protected from such harrowing struggle and hardship.

This situation needs looking at again.