Lives could have been saved if a travel company had carried out a security audit before the Sousse terrorist attack instead of an assessment after it, an inquest has heard.
The hearing into the deaths of 30 British holidaymakers in the resort in Tunisia in June 2015 heard that TUI did not carry out frequent security risk assessments on resorts or hotels before the atrocity.
A TUI boss told the inquest he had been contacted by a security consultancy firm in March, just after a terror attack at the Bardo National Museum in the country's capital Tunis.
The inquest at the Royal Courts of Justice in London heard that TUI appointed the security consultancy company Covenant to carry out an audit in the resort in July, excluding the five-star Riu Imperial Marhaba hotel where the attack had just taken place.
Another TUI employee, Jacque Reynolds, a director of risk and compliance for TUI, based in the UK, said in a witness statement: "TUI did not carry out regular security risk assessments of resorts or hotels prior to the Sousse attack. The only security reviews (of hotels) that had been commissioned before then were in Egypt."
Covenant's briefing note after its audit said: "The current level of emergency planning and the associated procedures such as evacuation and invacuation need to be enhanced to meet the challenges of the evolving security situation.
"A best guess at this is simply not good enough. This is something that should be designed by security specialists alongside the hotel management because they will need to understand the plans and procedures and also communicate them to their staff together."
The briefing note in July came soon after the Sousse massacre and three months after the Bardo attack.
Ian Chapman, regional director for West Mediterranean at TUI, said in his statement that after the Bardo attack he had received an email from Covenant which carried out the work for TUI in Egypt.
Covenant suggested that it would be "worthwhile" to meet up to discuss Tunisia, but Mr Chapman said in his statement that he did not arrange a meeting with the firm.
Andrew Ritchie QC, counsel for the families of the victims, put it to Ms Reynolds that, had TUI instigated the security audit after the Bardo attack, the company had 11 weeks to make changes, and "might have saved quite a few lives by having those things in place".
He also said to her: "I put it to you that TUI should have audited security on paper or by sending an expert adviser when the FCO (Foreign Office) advised there was a high risk of terror activity after Bardo. Would you agree with that?"
She said she did not agree, adding: "We were told on numerous occasions that the advice wouldn't be changing."
Ms Reynolds said that a reason security did not form part of safety audits was because of the conditions and circumstances of security being "variable", in contrast with the more static nature of swimming pool depths for example.
Mr Ritchie said: "May I put it to you that if the security is variable that's the whole reason you audit."
She agreed with Mr Ritchie's summary that TUI "relied on hotels and local authorities" regarding these matters.
Meanwhile, the inquest also heard summaries of accounts of the guards at the hotel from a report by Tunisian Judge Akremi.
One guard suggested he was aware that something was happening from 11.40am and that security forces did not get to the hotel until 10 or 15 minutes past midday.
Another security guard said he heard the sound of gunfire at 11.45am and that security forces did not manage to intervene.
The head of the guard team said his guards were "not equipped with any means whatsoever to repel any sort of attack".
Earlier this week, the inquest heard that Tunisian law enforcement units deliberately delayed their arrival on the scene of the terrorist attack.
Extremist Seifeddine Rezgui massacred 38 tourists - including three Irish citizens - on June 26.
The inquest will continue at 10am on Monday.
Why are you making commenting on The Herald only available to subscribers?
It should have been a safe space for informed debate, somewhere for readers to discuss issues around the biggest stories of the day, but all too often the below the line comments on most websites have become bogged down by off-topic discussions and abuse.
heraldscotland.com is tackling this problem by allowing only subscribers to comment.
We are doing this to improve the experience for our loyal readers and we believe it will reduce the ability of trolls and troublemakers, who occasionally find their way onto our site, to abuse our journalists and readers. We also hope it will help the comments section fulfil its promise as a part of Scotland's conversation with itself.
We are lucky at The Herald. We are read by an informed, educated readership who can add their knowledge and insights to our stories.
That is invaluable.
We are making the subscriber-only change to support our valued readers, who tell us they don't want the site cluttered up with irrelevant comments, untruths and abuse.
In the past, the journalist’s job was to collect and distribute information to the audience. Technology means that readers can shape a discussion. We look forward to hearing from you on heraldscotland.com
Comments & Moderation
Readers’ comments: You are personally liable for the content of any comments you upload to this website, so please act responsibly. We do not pre-moderate or monitor readers’ comments appearing on our websites, but we do post-moderate in response to complaints we receive or otherwise when a potential problem comes to our attention. You can make a complaint by using the ‘report this post’ link . We may then apply our discretion under the user terms to amend or delete comments.
Post moderation is undertaken full-time 9am-6pm on weekdays, and on a part-time basis outwith those hours.
Read the rules hereComments are closed on this article