Risk assessment or method statement?

A risk assessment answers “what can hurt people, and what will we do about it?” A method statement answers “in what order, and what has to be finished before the next step?” They are related. They are not the same page with two titles.

HSE’s blank risk-assessment form will not tell a bricklaying gang where the cutter sits. A method that says “carry out works as directed” will not tell anyone the footway is closed before the first cut. You need both ideas, whether you bind them as a RAMS or keep them as a risk assessment and a method statement.

A worked difference

Take dry cutting of blocks beside a school gate at picking-up time.

The assessment names silica dust, noise, and children on the pavement. It scores the job before any control, then again after water suppression, a screen, and a timed closure of the footway. A dust mask is written last, because it is last in the hierarchy.

The method says: set the cutter away from the gate, water on before the blade spins, footway closed between the times the school gave you, slurry not left to dry. The briefing uses that order. Nobody can brief a score on its own.

Where people swap them

“Wear PPE” in a method is an assessment that never chose a control. “See method statement” in every hazard row is an assessment that never says what the control is. If a line could be copied onto a different trade without editing, it is probably not doing either job.

The bricklaying and tiling samples show dust and blades written as both a score and a sequence. COSHH is a third document when the substance needs its own decision. The RAMS should point at that decision, not pretend to be it.

Which one does the client want?

Most principal contractors say RAMS and mean the pack. Ask if they also want a permit, a COSHH sheet, or a fire risk assessment of their building. A hot-works RAMS is not a fire risk assessment of the premises.