Ask for "your RAMS" on a UK construction site and you're asking for two documents that people treat as one: a Risk Assessment and a Method Statement. They're related, they're usually submitted together, and they're constantly confused. But they answer different questions — and principal contractors reject submissions that blur the two.
What each document actually does
A risk assessment answers: what could go wrong, and how have we reduced the risk? It identifies hazards, who's at risk, and the controls that bring each risk to an acceptable level. It's required under the Management of Health and Safety at Work Regulations 1999.
A method statement answers: how exactly will we carry out this work, safely, step by step? It's a sequence — mobilisation, the task itself, and the controls applied at each stage — written so the crew on site can follow it. It's the practical companion that turns the risk assessment's controls into actions.
Risk assessment = the risks and the controls. Method statement = the safe sequence of work that applies those controls.
Why they're submitted together as "RAMS"
On a managed site, the principal contractor needs both before you start: the risk assessment to prove you understand the hazards, and the method statement to prove your plan actually addresses them. Submit one without the other and you've answered half the question — which is why incomplete RAMS are the most common reason for a pre-start rejection.
What a strong method statement contains
- Scope of works — the specific task, location and duration.
- Sequence of operations — numbered steps from setup to completion.
- Plant, equipment and materials — what's being used, with inspection/certification notes.
- Controls at each step — drawn directly from the risk assessment, not invented separately.
- Roles and competence — who does what, and what tickets/training they hold.
- Emergency arrangements — first aid, rescue plan (e.g. for work at height or confined spaces), and stop-work triggers.
The link reviewers check first
The single biggest tell of a competent RAMS package is consistency between the two documents. If the risk assessment says "exclusion zone and banksman for the excavator" but the method statement never mentions a banksman, the reviewer knows the documents were written in isolation. Every control in the risk assessment should appear, in context, in the method statement's sequence.
Getting both right without writing them twice
Most SME contractors write the risk assessment, then start the method statement from a blank page and re-type half of it — which is exactly where the inconsistencies creep in. RiskCompli generates the risk assessment, a one-page Flash Card for the toolbox talk, and an HSG65-style Method Statement from the same source, so the controls line up automatically. One job, three documents, no contradictions for the principal contractor to pick apart.
RiskCompli is part of SafeCompli. For more plain-English guidance on RAMS, CDM and UK safety law, browse the SafeCompli Insights library.