RAMS: the complete guide to risk assessments and method statements

What RAMS actually means

RAMS is a compound of two documents that are usually issued together. The risk assessment lists the hazards involved in a task, who could be harmed, the likelihood and severity, then the control measures that reduce the residual risk to an acceptable level. The method statement describes how the work will actually be carried out: the sequence, the plant, the people, the permits and the emergency arrangements. One without the other is half a submission. A risk assessment with no method leaves the reviewer guessing how the controls get applied, and a method statement with no risk assessment reads as a work plan rather than a safety case.

When you need one, and when you do not

UK law requires employers to assess risk and, where there are five or more employees, to record the significant findings. In practice the contractual bar sits much higher than the legal one: most principal contractors require task-specific RAMS from every subcontractor before mobilisation, regardless of headcount. If you are on someone else's site, assume RAMS are required and ask what format they want.

What a good risk assessment contains

• The specific task, at the specific location, with the specific people.
• Hazards identified honestly, including the boring ones such as manual handling and slips.
• Who could be harmed, including other trades, the client's staff and the public.
• Existing controls, then residual risk after those controls, scored consistently.
• Additional controls needed, with a named person and a date.
• Reference to the substances, plant and permits involved, not just the trade.

What a good method statement contains

1. Scope: what is and is not included in this piece of work.
2. Site and access arrangements, including exclusion zones and welfare.
3. Sequence of work, step by step, in the order it will happen.
4. Plant, equipment and materials, with inspection and certification references.
5. People: roles, competencies, card types and supervision ratios.
6. PPE specified by task rather than as a blanket list.
7. Permits required, such as hot works, confined space or roof access.
8. Emergency arrangements: first aid, rescue plan, nearest hospital, who calls it.
9. Sign-off: author, reviewer, date, revision number and a briefing record.

Who writes it, who reviews it, who accepts it

The organisation doing the work writes the RAMS, because only they know how they intend to do it. A competent person within that organisation reviews it. The principal contractor then accepts or rejects it, and that acceptance is a contractual gate rather than a rubber stamp. Problems start when a subcontractor asks the main contractor to write their RAMS, or when a main contractor accepts a document nobody has read. Both are common and both are indefensible after an incident.

The ten-minute review a principal contractor actually runs

1. Is it about this site and this task, or is it a template with the address swapped?
2. Does the sequence match the programme you agreed?
3. Are the named competencies real, with card and ticket numbers you can check?
4. Are the high-risk activities covered specifically rather than by a generic line?
5. Are the permits identified, and do they match your own permit regime?
6. Are the plant inspection dates current?
7. Is the emergency plan site-specific, including the actual nearest hospital?
8. Is there a revision number, an author, a reviewer and a date?
9. Does the residual risk scoring make sense, or is everything conveniently low?
10. Is there a briefing mechanism, so the operatives will actually see it?

The eight most common reasons RAMS get rejected

• Copy-paste template with another site's name still in it.
• No sequence of work, just a hazard list.
• Generic PPE line rather than task-specific requirements.
• Competency claimed but no card, ticket or training reference.
• Emergency arrangements that name a hospital 40 miles away.
• Plant listed without inspection or thorough examination dates.
• No revision control, so nobody knows which version is live.
• Undated signatures, or a signature block left blank.

Keeping RAMS current once work starts

A RAMS is not a gate you pass once. The sequence changes, a different operative turns up, the client moves the works window and the accepted document quietly stops describing reality. The discipline is simple: any material change means a revision, a fresh briefing and a new signature sheet. The administrative burden is where this falls apart, because revision three sits in an email while revision one is pinned in the site cabin. Holding the current version against the subcontractor record, with the superseded versions archived rather than deleted, is what makes the trail defensible.

How RAMS fit with the rest of the subcontractor pack

RAMS never travel alone. A principal contractor asking for a method statement is usually also asking for insurance certificates, card checks, plant certification, training records and a right-to-work position. Collecting them as one request rather than five emails is the difference between mobilising on Monday and mobilising the following Thursday.

Doing this at scale without drowning

One RAMS is a document. Forty subcontractors across nine live jobs is an operating problem, and it is the point where spreadsheets stop coping. Credbase holds each subcontractor as a record with their RAMS, insurance, cards and tickets attached, tracks the expiry on everything that has one, chases the renewals and gives you a single link to hand a client who asks what evidence you hold. The RAMS review is still a human job, and it should be. Everything around it does not have to be.