Paul Kehoe (Wexford, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Question 167: To ask the Minister for Social and Family Affairs if she is satisfied that her Department is correct in its interpretation of section 100 (1) (A) of the Social Welfare Consolidation Act 2005, when it states that a self-employed person has to have paid one contribution prior to reaching the age of 66 years in view of the fact that in the event of a commercial partnership deemed to have existed by her Department, it has to be accepted that where a joint bank account existed that the moneys paid represented funds belonging to the spouse, even though it may have been credited to the other spouse's account, and in some instances the cheques may have been signed by the spouse, therefore, the way she states that one contribution had not been paid, thus eliminating this person from their entitlement to the pension. [7315/10]

Mary Hanafin (Dún Laoghaire, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I am satisfied with the current interpretation of section 110 of the Social Welfare Consolidation Act, 2005. As set out in legislation, a self-employed contributor is liable to pay PRSI contributions based on his or her reckonable income or reckonable emoluments. The relevant provisions impose a personal liability on the self-employed contributor to pay contributions, which cannot be satisfied by those contributions having been paid by another person. There is no provision within the social insurance system whereby contributions paid in respect of one individual can be ascribed to the contribution record of another individual.