RAMS vs Method Statement: The Actual Difference

Most explanations of "RAMS vs method statement" miss the point. A RAMS is not an alternative to a method statement — a RAMS contains a method statement, alongside a risk assessment, in a single bound document. The interesting question isn't what the acronym stands for. It's when a standalone method statement is enough, when you need the full RAMS, and what each must contain to be accepted on a UK construction site.

The short answer

• Risk assessment — what could go wrong, and what controls reduce it. Required by the Management of Health and Safety at Work Regulations 1999, reg. 3.
• Method statement — how the work will actually be carried out, in order, with the controls embedded in each step. Not a statutory requirement on its own, but expected under CDM 2015 for any non-trivial construction activity.
• RAMS — both of the above, in one document, cross-referenced so each method step maps to the hazards it addresses.

The legal basis for each

The phrase "method statement" does not appear in any UK statute. It appears in HSE guidance (notably L153 on CDM 2015) and in industry standards (BS 6187 for demolition, SG4:22 for scaffolding) as the practical way to discharge the duty in CDM 2015 reg. 13 — that contractors must plan, manage and monitor work so it is carried out without risks to health and safety.

A risk assessment, by contrast, is a direct statutory duty. Reg. 3(1) of the Management Regs requires every employer to make "a suitable and sufficient assessment" of the risks employees and others are exposed to. Reg. 3(6) requires the significant findings to be recorded once you have five or more employees.

So: every construction activity needs a risk assessment by law. Most need a method statement by practice. The RAMS is simply the convention for delivering both at once.

What each actually contains

A risk assessment

• List of hazards specific to the activity and location
• Who could be harmed (workers, public, other trades)
• Likelihood × severity rating before controls
• Control measures grouped under the hierarchy in reg. 4 of the Management Regs (eliminate, substitute, engineering, admin, PPE)
• Residual rating after controls
• Reviewer name, date, review trigger

A method statement

• Scope and sequence — what is being done, in what order
• Plant, tools, materials and access equipment
• Personnel, competencies and supervision
• Step-by-step description, each step naming the controls applied
• Permits required (hot work, confined space, excavation) and who holds them
• Emergency arrangements specific to the method
• Sign-on sheet for everyone briefed before work begins

A RAMS

Both of the above in one PDF, with the method statement section referencing the hazard numbers in the risk assessment. That cross-reference is the part most generic templates miss — without it, a principal contractor sees two unrelated documents stapled together and rejects the submission.

When each is acceptable on its own

Risk assessment only — acceptable

• Repetitive office or warehouse tasks where the method is obvious (filing, low-level shelving, basic cleaning)
• Routine maintenance where the same person follows the same documented procedure every time
• Tenant-side inspections and surveys with no intrusive work

Method statement only — rarely acceptable

Some large principal contractors maintain their own risk assessment library and only want the subcontractor's method. In that case a standalone method statement is fine — but the risk assessment still has to exist somewhere, and the contractor should be able to produce it on demand for HSE inspection.

Full RAMS — expected for

• All construction work on a CDM 2015 notifiable site
• Work at height (WAHR 2005), excavation over 1.2 m, confined spaces, hot works, lifting operations, asbestos disturbance, electrical isolation
• Any subcontractor submission to a principal contractor
• Tenders where RAMS is named as a contract deliverable

Worked example — same job, three documents

Replacing a section of suspended ceiling in an occupied office, 2.6 m floor-to-ceiling.

Risk assessment extract

• Hazard 4 — fall from podium step: likelihood 2 × severity 3 = 6 before controls. After: podium step inspected weekly, guardrails up, single operative at height, 4 m exclusion zone. Residual 1 × 3 = 3.
• Hazard 7 — disturbed mineral fibre tile / possible Asbestos Containing Material (ACM): likelihood 2 × severity 5 = 10. After: pre-construction information and asbestos register reviewed, work paused if any tile differs from the surveyed sample, UKAS-accredited reinspection booked. Residual 1 × 5 = 5.

Method statement extract

1. Confirm asbestos register reviewed and matches tile sample (addresses Hazard 7).
2. Erect 4 m exclusion zone with cones and signage; brief floor manager (addresses Hazard 4 and public-protection hazards 11–13).
3. Erect inspected podium step, deploy guardrails, lock wheels (Hazard 4).
4. Operative at height removes one tile at a time, hands down to operative at floor level. No reaching beyond shoulder width.
5. If any tile differs in colour, weight or fibre pattern from the registered sample — stop, isolate area, contact site manager (Hazard 7).

RAMS

The above two extracts, in the same PDF, with a header table that lists hazards 1–14 and the method-statement step numbers that address each one. That table is what a principal contractor checks first.

What principal contractors reject

• Method with no risk assessment — looks like the contractor hasn't thought about what could go wrong.
• Risk assessment with no method — looks like a generic library document, not a job plan.
• Two documents stapled together with no cross-reference — the most common failure mode. There must be a visible link between each method step and the hazard it controls.
• Generic hazards copied from a template — "slips, trips and falls" with no site-specific detail is a flag, not a control.
• No sign-on sheet or briefing record — the document exists but no one on site has seen it.

Riskora's RAMS builder enforces the cross-reference automatically: every method step is bound to one or more risk-assessment rows, and the export refuses to generate if any hazard is left unaddressed.

FAQs

Is a RAMS a legal requirement in the UK?

The risk assessment portion is a statutory duty under the Management of Health and Safety at Work Regulations 1999. The method statement portion is the standard way to discharge the planning duty in CDM 2015 reg. 13. Neither the word "RAMS" nor "method statement" appears in statute — but for almost all construction work, producing both is the practical legal expectation.

Can I just send a method statement to the principal contractor?

Only if they have explicitly said they will produce the risk assessment centrally. Otherwise expect rejection.

Is a method statement the same as a safe system of work (SSoW)?

Functionally yes — a written method statement is the documented form of an SSoW for a specific task. The phrases are used interchangeably in HSE guidance.

How often does each need reviewing?

Risk assessments must be reviewed when circumstances change (Management Regs reg. 3(3)) and at least annually for active operations. Method statements are work-specific and are written fresh for each new job; they don't carry forward.

Related reading

• RAMS vs risk assessment — full explainer
• What a UK method statement must include
• How to write a method statement that passes principal contractor review
• Trade-specific RAMS guides · Template library