A factory inspector has said "sorry" to relatives of the nine people who died in the ICL explosion in Glasgow.

Explosions specialist Alan Tyldesley addressed families after giving evidence at the public inquiry into the disaster in Glasgow on May 11, 2004.

The inquiry has heard how inspectors with the Health and Safety Executive (HSE) recommended that underground pipe work be excavated and examined following a site visit in 1988, but the work was not carried out.

After giving his evidence over two days Mr Tyldesley, who left the HSE a year after the disaster, asked inquiry chairman Lord Gill for permission to address the relatives of the victims.

He said: "I was and still am sorry that this disaster was not averted."

He said he had put some comments on his website following the prosecution of ICL Plastics and ICL Tech last year, but was asked to remove the comments.

Mr Tyldesley added: "During May, when my statement to this inquiry was being prepared with the help of Pinsent Masons, I wanted again to find a way of saying sorry.

"We explored various forms of words but could not find any that did not either imply, however obliquely, that anyone else might have anything to say sorry for, or appear to take on my own shoulders responsibility for matters over which I did not feel 100% responsible. So these paragraphs were left out.

"It seems that once the legal processes start, the word sorry' becomes very difficult to say. Despite that, I just want the families to know where my sympathies lie."

The inquiry heard how Mr Tyldesley agreed to an alternative proposal by ICL that did not state that underground pipelines would be examined.

He said he assumed that Calor Gas, who negotiated the terms of the HSE recommendations on behalf of ICL, were "competent" and would carry out a partial excavation to ensure the condition of the pipes.

Mr Tyldesley said he was not responsible for enforcing HSE recommendations.

Lord Gill suggested a "gap" in the inspection system was to blame for the fact that no follow-up checks were made to see the work had been done.

Mr Tyldesley said: "It was a constant source of annoyance that many inspectors didn't know what became of their recommendations."

Lord Gill said: "If there was no system for follow-ups to be sure that Calor or whoever had actually done what they said they would do then that would suggest there was a gap in the system."

Mr Tyldesley replied: "If we spent a lot of time chasing up every recommendation then we would get round far fewer premises."

The witness said it had not been practical to divide his time "chasing up every recommendation I ever wrote".

The inquiry continues.