Opposition spokesman on trade, industry and global logistics Anthony Hylton says the People’s National Party (PNP) is hoping Parliament will resume debate on the censure motion over Jamaica’s abstention on a United Nations (UN) resolution concerning Cuba, despite the Government’s position that the matter is closed.

Hylton also says the Government owes Cuban Ambassador Tania López Larroque an apology for inviting her to the House of Representatives on October 27 to hear debate on a motion supporting an end to the United States’ embargo against Cuba without disclosing that it was considering a change in Jamaica’s long-standing position on the issue.

Jamaica abstained from the UN vote the following day.

Speaking during a press conference on Tuesday, Hylton said the Opposition wants the censure motion treated as a part-heard matter, allowing members who have not yet contributed to the debate to do so when the House next meets.

Hylton said the Opposition wanted the debate completed, even if the Government ultimately used its majority to vote against the motion.

“I’m hoping that with that reflection and that understanding as to the real nature of the motion and any confusion that there may have been cleared up, that I think the appropriate thing to do is to treat the matter as part-heard, as continuing over into the next Parliament, and to allow for the Opposition members and others who wish to make a contribution to conclude to participate in what we believe is a very important debate,” he said.

He added that the Opposition had considered other steps it could take, both inside and outside Parliament, if the Government chose not to allow the debate to continue. However, he did not give details.

On the question of an apology to the Cuban ambassador, Hylton said López Larroque had attended the October 27 sitting to hear a debate on an issue on which Jamaica had historically supported Cuba at the United Nations.

He said the ambassador had been attending Parliament during the annual debate for nearly 17 years and left the House that evening without any indication that Jamaica would abstain from the vote the following day.

“I dare say none of that discussion had reached the ears of the Cubans themselves, who were the sponsors of the motion. As a friendly Government, we have a range of diplomatic skills that we know what we might have done were we serious about doing what they subsequently said they wanted to do, which is to suggest other ways of expanding the resolution to allow for other considerations… So, yes, we do believe that the treatment of the Cuban ambassador in the House was not a way to treat a friendly ambassador,” Hylton said.

He argued that the Government could have taken a different diplomatic approach, including voting in favour of the resolution while expressing reservations and explaining its concerns afterwards.

Dayton Campbell, Member of Parliament (MP) for Westmoreland Eastern, also questioned why the ambassador had been invited to the debate if the Government was considering abstaining from the UN vote.

The motion was brought after Jamaica broke with more than three decades of support for an annual United Nations General Assembly resolution calling for an end to the US economic embargo against Cuba. Jamaica had voted in favour of the resolution since 1992 but abstained on October 28, 2026.

The decision came a day after the House approved a Government-sponsored motion expressing concern about Cuba’s economic and humanitarian situation and supporting efforts to reduce the restrictions against the island.

The Opposition’s objection is that the Government did not tell Parliament it was considering a change in Jamaica’s voting position before asking MPs to debate the issue.

Hylton said the Government was entitled to change its foreign policy, but should have disclosed its intentions before the House debated the matter.

He further claimed the Opposition had reason to believe the decision to abstain had already been communicated to Jamaica’s United Nations mission in New York before or during the parliamentary debate. Hylton described the alleged failure to disclose the contemplated change as a failure by Cabinet to be open with Parliament.

The censure motion seeks to have the House formally record its disapproval of the Government’s handling of the matter. However, the Government has argued that the October 27 motion did not direct how Jamaica should vote at the United Nations and has maintained that the parliamentary matter is finished.

Hylton is now asking that it be treated as an adjourned matter, meaning debate would continue from where it stopped. He argued that a censure motion should not be confused with a motion of no confidence.

“A motion of censure, on the other hand, asks something different. Did the government act properly in this matter? It removes no one. It needs no special majority. It triggers nothing in the constitution. It is the House putting its judgement on the record. In other words, a no confidence motion says you must go. A censure motion says you are wrong and the record of this House will say so,” he said.