I came across a question yesterday at a training course in a gallery. One of the exhibits was lengths of tube and clip scaffolding, put together by a non competent scaffolder. There were no boards on the 'scaffolding' but he had to clamber around at height to complete his 'artwork'. Although the gallery had completed a R/A on carrying the components into the building, there was no R/A for assembling the scaffold (or the possibility of someone climbing on it during it's exhibition). Is there special dispensation for things like this or should the person who assembled it be competent (in scaffolding and/or W@H)? Furthermore, as it was up for three to four weeks, should it have been inspected weekly? Your thoughts would be appreciated.

As far as i am aware there is no dispesation, a RA should have been carried out by the gallery which includes all aspects of W@H, scaffold erection and 7 day inspections by a competant person. However, what a day for the press if it got in the papers that the elf and safety men/women were at it again. In my view it is proberbly the case, that the gallery did not have a H&S professional to give the right guidance in the first place. Having said all of the above and regardless of the press, asuming that i have read your post correctly. I would have to seriously consider stopping the dangerous W@H issues you mention.

It has nothing to do with whether art is regulated or not. The WAH Regs apply to an employer (the gallery) both with regard to their own employees (who were presumably at risk) and to persons under their control (presumably the exhibitor). They also apply to self-employed persons - again presumably the exhibitor. What should have been done? For trade exhibitions, most exhibition companies seem to provide a "risk assessment proforma" that the exhibitor has to fill in to show they have considered the potential risks posed by their exhibition stand, both to themselves, the exhibition company and the public who will attend. This is then examined by the exhibition company to determine if they are satisfied with the arrangements. I suggest something similar could easily be done for this type of exhibit. The risk assessment would then identify the measures required for safe erection and also whether it needed any ongoing inspection. The gallery would be responsible for determining if the assessment was adequate. The Trafalgar Square exhibits most certainly DID have a risk assessment - there was safety netting all round the plinth for a start to prevent anyone falling and I believe in severe weather the show was actually suspended for safety reasons. The individuals on the plinth were of course not at work, but the company running it was, and the individuals were "persons under their control" If anyone has any doubts over the potential for artworks to cause serious injury and for the artist to be prosecuted try a search for Dreamspace.

If you mean regularly inspected as pre WAHR then I don't think so Chris. I don't think this would fall into the definition of a "working platform" ("any platform used as a place of work or as a means of access to or egress from a place of work") within the WAHR and so it would not require ongoing statutory inspections as a normal scaffold would. Obviously without having seen the construction in question it's hard to say what sort of ongoing checks (if any) it should have, but just because it's made from scaffold poles and clips doesn't necessarily make it a "scaffold" in law IMHO. None of this changes the fact that an assessment should have been carried out under WAHR prior to its assembly to allow this to be done safely of course, or that there should be safeguards to stop people climbing on it.

Shibboleth exhibit at the Tate Modern raised similar issues a couple of years back. See (e.g.) http://www.cieh.org/jehr/jehr3.aspx?id=14528