A vote in the Upper House against passing legislation for the reopening of the Elbow Beach Hotel was based on a “misunderstanding of some technical aspects of the deal”, the One Bermuda Alliance has said.

Robert King, the Leader of the Opposition, maintained that the OBA wholly backed the Loren (Pink Beach and Elbow Beach) Act 2025, despite three of its senators joining an independent senator in voting against the third reading of the Bill.

Mr King told The Royal Gazette that the issue had arisen over the “interpretation” of the proposal but that “nothing more than that should be read into this”.

Mr King added: “Again, the OBA is in full support of the project and all it will bring to Bermuda. Full stop.”

However, Mischa Fubler, the government senator who brought the Act to the Senate, where it was passed last week by six votes to four, told the Gazette that the resistance to the legislation could have imperilled a vital development.

He said: “The OBA senate team has less than a year’s experience, but can Bermuda afford for that to be an approach to legislating? If the Bill had failed to pass, what would that have done to confidence in the project?

“I do not feel like developers are fighting over each other to develop this space, or we would not have gone five years waiting for it.”

The legislation offers 15 years of tax and customs duty relief to the Loren at Pink Beach to “facilitate the development of the Loren Hotel at Elbow Beach”. The Loren Group purchased that property in April.

The group plans a “comprehensive redevelopment” at the Elbow Beach site, an iconic, 44-acre resort on the South Shore that has been shuttered since its closure in 2020.

The original hotel development dates back to 1908.

The raft of concessions was passed by the House of Assembly in September with full Opposition support. Mr Fubler highlighted that Victoria Cunningham, the Opposition leader in the Senate, had maintained that support at the opening of the debate in the Upper House on September 29, and said the OBA welcomed “any legislative measures that enable us to move things forward”.

Mr Fubler added, in an op-ed published in the Gazette today, that he was left in “bemusement” when the Opposition “waited until the third and final reading of the Bill to vote ‘nay’ down the line”.

He said objecting during the second reading, or moving to go into committee to discuss the legislation, would have “provided the opportunity to debate the finer details of the Bill”.

Joan Dillas-Wright, the President of the Senate, joined the five government senators when the matter came to a vote. John Wight, the vice-president, was absent, but the six votes carried it through.

Mr Fubler accused the Opposition of playing “political games” by its three senators voting against passing the Act.

However, independent senator Tawana Tannock told the Gazette that the Opposition had not “spearheaded” criticism of the legislation.

“The OBA didn’t raise the issue — I raised it,” she said.

Ms Tannock said her concern was that The Loren had already been granted concessions under a 2015 investment order, with the resort opening for guests in 2017.

She told Mr Fubler in the Senate: “Your Bill is proposing to grant further relief for 15 years. The amendment to the Tourism Investment Act states that no relief should be granted that exceeds 15 years for a new hotel.”

Ms Tannock said with The Loren open for eight years, the Senate now appeared to be granting total relief to the resort for 23 years.

Mr Fubler responded that by passing the legislation, the Senate would be revoking the previous order.

However, at the third reading, Ms Tannock voted against the legislation, with opposition senators Dion Smith and Tarik Smith joining Ms Cunningham in voting against.

Mr Fubler later highlighted that Dwayne Robinson, the Shadow Minister of Tourism, Culture and Transport, had given “explicit support” in the House last month.

He called the Opposition’s apparent change of tack in the Senate “disappointing”.

Informed of Mr King’s comment this week that there had been a “misunderstanding” in the Upper House based on technicalities, Mr Fubler said he had expected the Opposition to “come prepared” to the Senate for the debate.

He added: “At the last minute, to change direction means there is a gap between what they are saying and what they are doing.”