'I have nothing to declare' - Sinn Fein's Carál Ní Chuilín responds to TUV questions over her son

Carál Ní Chuilín told the Executive Office committee that she had “no interest to declare at all on behalf of myself or anyone else”, as MLAs prepared to discuss aspects of the row over a vandalised portrait at Belfast City Hall.

DUP MLA Phillip Brett had written to colleagues ahead of yesterday afternoon’s meeting to announce his intention to raise the issue of the portrait.

He said the matter was of “serious public concern”, and that he would raise it during the meeting at which Sinn Fein junior minister Aisling Reilly was giving evidence.

Ms Reilly was at Belfast City Hall on the night the portrait was damaged.

First Minister Michelle O’Neill told the assembly in October 2024 that an unnamed SF employee had made the party aware of his “involvement in an incident regarding a portrait in Belfast City Hall”.

She said that he was “immediately suspended” and the party notified police – saying he had resigned from both his party membership and his employment.

The Public Prosecution Service (PPS) this week announced it would not take any action over the incident, due to a lack of evidence.

TUV MLA Mr Gaston raised online claims at the beginning of the meeting, asking whether Ms Ní Chuilín wished to make any declarations.

“I suppose what I want to ascertain is that Miss Cullen wants to make a declaration of interest at this stage, due to the interest that is around this issue regarding her son has been named on social media as being involved in the damage of that portrait.

“The second thing I would like to raise is Junior Minister Reilly will be in attendance today, and in light of Naoise's employment with the junior minister at that time, as a translator, I understand, I would seek your clarity. Does the junior minister also need to declare an interest when dealing with this issue?

“And the third issue that I would like to raise is relating to the meeting on the 23rd of October, if indeed what we read online is true, and it is Miss Cullen's son that was involved in that. We had a discussion in here where it was raised by Harry Harvey, and indeed Caral interjected in that discussion. So it needs to be clear parameters going forward.”

Mr Gaston said he had “serious, serious concerns” – adding that “if what we read is true, then there should have been a declaration of interest declared on the 23rd of October [2024] and that didn't happen”.

Ms Ní Chuilín responded: “First of all, Timothy, my name is Ní Chuilín, and you know that. So I just ask you to respectfully address me by my name. I have nothing to declare, absolutely nothing to declare. I'm here to scrutinise, in front of us today, draft legislation affecting victims and survivors, and that's what I'm here to do today. I have no interest to declare at all on behalf of myself or anyone else.”

The SF MLA continued: “I actually don't think it's in the remit of this committee at all.”

In October 2024, DUP MLA Harry Harvey had asked the first minister about the vandalism of the portrait at Belfast City Hall.

His party colleague Brian Kingston interjected to ask about Ms O’Neill’s junior minister Ms Reilly’s attendance at the event where the incident occurred.

Ms Ní Chuilín interjected twice during the exchange, to clarify the capacity in which the junior minister had attended the event. The first minister declined to answer Mr Harvey’s question – saying it was not within the remit of the committee.

In a statement on Wednesday evening on behalf of Naoise O Cuilin, solicitor Niall Murphy of KRW Law said the allegation he was involved in the damage of the portrait is “entirely false, baseless and malicious”.

“For absolute clarity, and on our client’s behalf, I state unequivocally that our client did not cause any damage whatsoever to the portrait of Lord Wallace Browne. Any suggestion to the contrary is wholly unfounded,” he said.

“Our client responded positively to a request by police to attend voluntarily for police interview and was prepared to give an account. However, the paucity of evidence against our client was such that I advised him that there was nothing requiring an account, and that he should therefore exercise his lawful right to silence. This statutory protection exists for all citizens.

“Our client is a university graduate, has been in continuous employment since graduation, has no criminal record, and has never previously been accused of any criminal offence. The attempts to malign our client’s character in the absence of any evidence are wholly unjustified.

“It is wholly inappropriate for any individual, organisation, commentator or public figure to identify someone as a ‘suspect’ in circumstances where the Public Prosecution Service has determined that there is insufficient evidence to bring any criminal charge.”