Excellent RAMS, Different Crew: Are They Still Suitable and Sufficient?
A contractor submits a clean set of RAMS. Risk assessment, method statement, toolbox talk. The principal contractor signs them off. On the day, a different crew turns up.
Are those RAMS still suitable and sufficient?
Often, not automatically.
What the law is actually asking for
Under the Management of Health and Safety at Work Regulations 1999, employers must make a suitable and sufficient assessment of the risks to employees and others affected by the work. A method statement is how many contractors set out the safe system of work that sits with that assessment. Neither document is a shield if the people who deliver the job cannot carry out the controls the pack assumes.
HSE describes competence as the combination of training, skills, experience and knowledge, and the ability to apply them so a task is performed safely. Attitude and physical ability can matter too. Employers should take account of the competence of the people involved when they assess risk. If you use contractors, you also have responsibilities around their competence.
That is the bit a polished PDF can paper over. The assessment may be excellent for the team who wrote it and walked the job. It may not describe the team standing on the gate.
Where a crew change breaks the pack
Problems usually show up in practical gaps, not missing logos:
- The RAMS assume a ticketed plant operator, banksman, confined space role, or supervisor competence the new faces do not hold
- Named individuals, plant, access arrangements, or emergency contacts no longer match who is on site
- The original briefing was never given to the replacements, or was given as a signature sheet with no real understanding check
- Site conditions or sequencing have changed since the pack was written, and nobody updated it
- The client or principal contractor reviewed documents, not people
A change of personnel can be a significant enough change that the assessment is no longer suitable and sufficient for the work as it will actually be done. The honest response is not to argue about the quality of last month's Word file. It is to check competence before work starts, re-brief against the live RAMS, and amend the documents when the assumptions no longer hold.
If you cannot field people who can work to the controls, you do not start.
What "good" looks like in practice
Good RAMS describe the work as it will be done by the people who will do it. That means:
- Controls written around realistic competence levels, not a best-case CV
- Clear roles (who is supervising, who is operating plant, who is banksman) that can be filled by the actual crew
- A briefing process that reaches whoever turns up, not only the original named team
- A simple rule that a material change of people, plant, or method triggers a review before tools come out
- Principal contractors and clients who ask "who is doing this?" as well as "have you sent the RAMS?"
None of that requires a 40-page novel. It requires the assessment and the people to stay connected.
A question worth asking before the next job
When was the last time you checked that the crew on the gate matched the competence the RAMS were written around?
If the answer is uncomfortable, fix the process before the next call-off, not after something goes wrong.
Further reading
- Managing risks and risk assessment at work (HSE): https://www.hse.gov.uk/simple-health-safety/risk/index.htm
- What is competence? (HSE): https://www.hse.gov.uk/competence/what-is-competence.htm
- Using contractors: A brief guide (HSE INDG368): https://www.hse.gov.uk/pubns/indg368.htm
If you'd rather get this stuff in your inbox than scroll past a motivational quote to find it, join the list: https://safecompli.co.uk/subscribe?src=linkedin
On a side note: you can now try RiskCompli FREE, no card needed: riskcompli.safecompli.co.uk