Tour operators wanted to increase security in Sousse before 38 people were killed in a terrorist attack but did not want holidaymakers to be "scared by seeing an army of police", an inquest has heard.
The hearing into the deaths of 30 Britons in the Tunisian resort in June 2015 was told that in a meeting a month before the attack there was a discussion about police security and how it could make tourists feel "uncomfortable".
Venancio Lopez, managing director of Tunisie Voyages - a subsidiary of travel company TUI - flew to London to give evidence in the inquests at the Royal Courts of Justice.
He said he was at a meeting with British Embassy officials on May 25 2015 in Tunis - two months after the terror attack at the Bardo National Museum and one month before the Sousse atrocity.
The inquest heard Mr Lopez had a list of points he wanted the British Embassy to raise with Tunisian authorities, including the matter of police security.
Security in the resorts, and how visible it should be, was discussed and Mr Lopez said: "If security is too evident, they feel uncomfortable in the street."
In his statement to the inquest, he said: "We wanted to increase the security in general but we didn't want tourists to be scared by seeing an army of police."
The inquest heard it was decided that hotels should have metal detectors, staff should monitor CCTV, police should patrol the beaches and there would be an extra 400 officers.
Extremist Seifeddine Rezgui massacred tourists - including three Irish citizens - on June 26 at the five-star Riu Imperial Marhaba hotel.
Andrew Ritchie QC, representing victims' families, asked Mr Lopez why TUI UK sent him to meetings about security, suggesting to him he was sent because he was the only person there.
Mr Ritchie also asked the witness: "At any time between the end of March and the 26th of June were you asked by TUI UK to go round the Imperial Marhaba hotel to see if improvements had been made in security?"
He said: "No."
The inquest heard that out of nine hotels, the Imperial Marhaba had the fewest cameras, with six in total, while other hotels had up to 49.
Responding to a question about checking security at hotels, Paul Summerell, area manager in charge of service delivery for TUI Destination Services, said: "I think we would have had repercussions from the hotels. I don't think the hotels would have allowed us to do that."
He said the hotels did not see him or his staff's function as being security-related.
Asked about the increase in security that hotels were expected to make following the Bardo attack, he said: "The way I know how Tunisia worked, it would have had to have come from the authorities to change some things."
Mr Ritchie put it to Mr Summerell that it was not in his role to deal with these matters, pointing out that nobody was saying to him "Paul, go out there and do the proactive stuff and increase the security", to which he replied: "That's correct."
Mr Ritchie asked Mr Summerell what he would have said if he had known there were no CCTV cameras on the beach gates at the hotel.
"This has to be done through the authorities first. I know if I went to a hotel with this instruction they would have said 'No, you're not allowed to do that'," he said.
He said "control" is a "good word" in relation to how things worked in Tunisia.
Mr Ritchie also told the inquest about a letter - which he said was written about in a French news article - allegedly sent by the minister of tourism to all hotels telling them to improve the security.
Later, a witness statement from Camilla Bekkevold, resort team manager of TUI UK, was read to the inquest.
Ms Bekkevold said one of the main problems was identifying victims.
"Most people were in swimwear and were not carrying any papers or documents," she said, adding it was a particular problem if a couple had been killed or injured because there was nobody else there asking for them.
"Cleaning ladies reported to us what rooms were not touched. This is how we started to identify some of the people," she said.
The inquest continues.
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 here