Method Statement: What It Is, What It Must Contain & How to Write One

A method statement is the document that describes, step by step, how a specific construction or high-risk task will be carried out safely. It is the practical mechanism by which UK duty-holders discharge their statutory obligations — yet no single regulation uses the words "you must produce a method statement." Understanding that gap between industry practice and the underlying legal duties is the difference between producing paperwork that satisfies a principal contractor and producing a document that actually manages risk.

This page explains the legal chain, shows you exactly what a compliant method statement must contain (with a compliance mapping table), walks through a worked example for a hot-works flat-roof waterproofing task, and gives you a 12-question RAMS readiness checklist before you submit.

---

What Is a Method Statement? (Plain-Language Definition and Regulatory Context)

A method statement is a written document that sets out — in a logical sequence — the people, plant, materials, and controls involved in carrying out a defined task, so that everyone doing the work understands what to do, in what order, and what precautions to take.

It is not a form of guarantee. It is a planning and communication tool with a specific regulatory purpose:

• Under the Management of Health and Safety at Work Regulations 1999 (MHSWR), reg 3(1), every employer must make a suitable and sufficient assessment of the risks to health and safety of their employees whilst at work, and of persons not in their employment arising out of or in connection with the conduct of their undertaking. Where that employer has five or more employees, reg 3(6) requires them to record the significant findings of that assessment and any group of employees identified as especially at risk. The hazard-and-control section of a method statement is the standard industry mechanism for discharging that recording duty.

• Under CDM 2015 reg 12, the principal contractor must draw up a construction phase plan before setting up a construction site. That plan must set out the health and safety arrangements and site rules, taking account of the industrial activities taking place on the site. A subcontractor's method statement feeds directly into this plan — it is how the principal contractor knows what each trade intends to do and how they intend to manage the risks.

• Under CDM 2015 reg 13(1), the principal contractor must plan, manage and monitor the construction phase and coordinate matters relating to health and safety during the construction phase to ensure that, so far as is reasonably practicable, construction work is carried out without risks to health or safety. Reviewing and approving method statements from subcontractors is a core part of meeting that duty.

No regulation prescribes a document called a "method statement" by name. The legal drivers are the risk-assessment record under MHSWR 1999 reg 3 and the construction phase plan under CDM 2015 reg 12. The method statement is the industry-standard way of satisfying both.

---

Method Statement vs Risk Assessment: What's the Difference, and Why RAMS Works as a Pair

Contractors often ask whether they need both documents or whether one covers the other. The honest answer is that they overlap substantially but serve distinct functions.

	Risk Assessment	Method Statement
Primary question	What can go wrong, how likely is it, and how serious?	How will the work be done, and what controls will be in place at each step?
Regulatory hook	MHSWR 1999 reg 3 — record of significant findings	CDM 2015 reg 12 — construction phase plan inputs; reg 13 — coordination duty
Output	Likelihood/severity ratings; hierarchy of controls	Sequenced task instructions with integrated controls
Written by	Employer or competent person	Contractor responsible for the task
What it tells the reader	The nature and level of risk	The exact method and precautions for each work stage
Overlap	Both must identify hazards and specify control measures	Both must identify hazards and specify control measures

Why bundle them as RAMS? Because the hazard identification and control measures are the same information presented from two angles. A standalone risk assessment tells you what the risks are. A standalone method statement tells you how you will work. A combined RAMS (Risk Assessment and Method Statement) document satisfies the reg 3 recording duty and the construction phase plan input requirement in a single, auditable package — which is why principal contractors routinely require RAMS rather than either document alone.

---

When Is a Method Statement Required? (Legal Triggers vs Best Practice)

There is no statutory provision that names a specific list of tasks for which a "method statement" is mandated. The legal trigger is the risk-assessment recording duty under MHSWR 1999 reg 3(6) (five or more employees) and the CDM 2015 reg 12/13 duties on the principal contractor.

In practice, a method statement is effectively required whenever:

• A principal contractor is appointed — i.e., on any project involving more than one contractor. The principal contractor's duty under CDM 2015 reg 13(3)(c) to ensure contractors follow the construction phase plan, and under reg 13(1) to coordinate health and safety, means PCs routinely require method statements from every trade as a condition of starting work.
• The task is high-risk — work at height, hot works, confined spaces, demolition, excavation near services, or work involving hazardous substances. These tasks involve elevated residual risk that a brief verbal briefing cannot adequately document or defend.
• A client or accreditation scheme requires it — schemes such as CHAS and SSIP may require method statements as part of their assessment criteria. These are client or accreditation requirements, not statutory duties in their own right.
• Best practice on any project — even single-contractor projects benefit from a written method statement because it forces pre-task thinking, provides a briefing document for operatives, and creates a record if things go wrong.

---

Who Writes a Method Statement? (Responsibilities Under CDM 2015)

The contractor carrying out the work is responsible for producing the method statement for their own scope. That means:

• A subcontractor preparing to install a flat-roof membrane writes the method statement for that task.
• The principal contractor reviews it against the construction phase plan, satisfying their duty under CDM 2015 reg 13(1) to plan, manage and monitor the construction phase and coordinate matters relating to health and safety.
• A principal contractor is appointed by the client to control the construction phase of any project involving more than one contractor (HSE).
• The principal designer may provide pre-construction information that informs the method statement — for example, structural load limits relevant to plant positioning on a roof.

The author must be a competent person — someone with sufficient knowledge of the task, the site conditions, and the applicable controls. Competence is not defined by job title; it is demonstrated by the quality and specificity of the document.

---

What Must a Method Statement Contain? (Compliance Mapping Table)

The sections below are not prescribed by statute but reflect what the regulatory duties collectively require. The compliance mapping table shows exactly which duty each section discharges.

Compliance Mapping Table

Method Statement Section	Regulatory Duty Discharged
Project and task details (site address, task description, contractor, date)	CDM 2015 reg 12(2) — construction phase plan must set out arrangements for the site and industrial activities taking place
Scope of work (clear boundary of what this document covers)	CDM 2015 reg 13(1) — enables PC to plan, manage and monitor each trade's construction phase activities
People involved (names/roles of supervisor, operatives, competent persons)	CDM 2015 reg 13(1) — PC coordination duty; MHSWR 1999 reg 3(1) — assessment must cover all employees exposed
Plant, equipment and materials	HSE hazard identification — duty-holders must think about how plant and equipment are used and what chemicals and substances are used (HSE)
Sequence of operations (step-by-step task breakdown)	CDM 2015 reg 12(2) — health and safety arrangements for industrial activities on site; reg 13(1) — planning and managing the construction phase
Hazards and control measures (per work stage)	MHSWR 1999 reg 3(1) — suitable and sufficient risk assessment; reg 3(6) — record of significant findings
PPE requirements	MHSWR 1999 reg 3(1) — identification of measures needed to control risk
Emergency procedures (first aid, fire, evacuation)	CDM 2015 reg 12(2) — health and safety arrangements must address site-specific risks
Communication and briefing (toolbox talk record, worker sign-off)	HSE guidance — principal contractor must consult and engage with workers about their health, safety and welfare (HSE)
Review and revision (version history, trigger for review)	MHSWR 1999 reg 3(3) — assessment must be reviewed if no longer valid or if significant change occurs; CDM 2015 reg 12(4) — construction phase plan must be appropriately reviewed and updated
Signatures (author, reviewer, site manager)	Good practice for accountability and PC acceptance — supports the reg 3(6) record of significant findings, though the regulation does not itself mandate signatures

---

How to Write a Method Statement: Step-by-Step Guide with a Worked Example

The Six-Step Process

1. Define the task precisely. A method statement that covers "roofing works" is too vague. Pin it to the specific operation, location, and duration.
2. Walk the task. Before writing, physically review (or sketch) each stage. Identify the hazards the HSE framework requires you to consider: how people will work, how plant and equipment will be used, what substances will be involved, and what safe or unsafe practices exist.
3. Apply the hierarchy of controls. Eliminate where possible; substitute, engineer, administrate, then PPE — in that order.
4. Sequence the steps. Write them in the order they will actually happen, not in the order they occur to you.
5. Assign responsibilities. Name the supervisor and state which controls are their specific responsibility.
6. Brief and sign. The document has no value unless the operatives have read, understood, and confirmed it. Record that briefing.

---

📋 Worked Example: Hot-Works Waterproofing on a Flat Roof at Height

Project: Commercial building refurbishment, London
Task: Application of torch-on bituminous felt membrane to flat roof, 12 m above ground level
Contractor: ABC Roofing Ltd
Supervisor: J. Ahmed (CITB Hot Works trained)
Date: [Insert]
Version: 1.0

---

1. Scope of Work
Installation of two-layer torch-on felt waterproofing system to 420 m² flat roof deck. Excludes structural repairs and drainage installation (covered by separate RAMS). Work confined to roof level; access via scaffold staircase on north elevation.

---

2. People Involved

• Supervisor: J. Ahmed (qualified hot-works operative, first-aid trained)
• Operatives: 3 × CITB-trained roofers
• Fire watcher: 1 dedicated person during and 60 minutes post-torch operations
• PC site manager: M. Singh (review and sign-off)

---

3. Plant, Equipment and Materials

• Propane gas cylinders (max. 2 on roof at any time; rest stored in locked cage at ground level)
• Gas hoses: inspected before use; replaced if cracked or kinked
• Torch equipment: PAT-tested; flashback arrestors fitted
• Bituminous felt rolls: stored flat, protected from moisture
• 13 kg dry-powder extinguishers (×2 on roof); water extinguisher at stair access point
• Class EN 407 gloves, safety footwear, flame-retardant overalls, eye protection

---

4. Sequence of Operations with Hazards and Controls

Step	Activity	Hazards	Controls
1	Site setup and access	Fall from height during access	Scaffold inspected and tagged; operatives briefed on exclusion zones; barriers at roof perimeter
2	Cylinder delivery to roof	Manual handling injury; cylinder drop	Maximum 2 cylinders hoisted at once using mechanical lift; never rolled near roof edge; cylinders chained when upright
3	Surface preparation	Dust inhalation; slips on debris	Dust masks (FFP2); debris swept to bags — not blown; non-slip footwear
4	Torch-on application — primer coat	Fire; burns; fume inhalation	Hot-works permit in place; fire watcher active; no torching within 500 mm of roof penetrations until shielded; RPE where ventilation inadequate
5	Torch-on application — cap sheet	Fire spread to substrate; fall from edge	Torch direction controlled away from edge; Corus edge protection boards at perimeter; fire watcher monitoring for smouldering
6	Post-torch inspection (60 min watch)	Latent fire in substrate	Fire watcher remains on roof for 60 minutes after last torch use; thermometer check of felt surface; extinguishers at hand
7	Gas cylinder removal and storage	Cylinder mishandling	Valves closed before disconnection; lowered by mechanical lift; cylinders returned to locked cage
8	Site clearance	Slip/trip on offcuts; waste disposal	All waste bagged; COSHH waste separated; roof swept before signing off

---

5. Emergency Procedures

• Fire: raise alarm; evacuate via scaffold staircase; muster point: car park south side; call 999; do not re-enter
• Person fallen/injured: do not move unless in immediate danger; call 999; supervisor to administer first aid; notify PC site manager immediately; RIDDOR reporting if required
• Gas leak: turn off cylinder valve; evacuate; ventilate; do not use ignition sources

---

6. Communication and Briefing
Toolbox talk to be delivered by J. Ahmed before work commences. All operatives to sign the briefing record below confirming they have read and understood this method statement.

Name	Signature	Date

---

7. Review Triggers
This document must be reviewed if: scope changes; an incident or near-miss occurs; site conditions alter materially; a change of materials is made. Version history on file with PC site manager.

---

RAMS Readiness Checklist: 12 Questions Before You Submit

Run through these before sending your RAMS pack to the principal contractor or client. A "No" to any question is a reason to revise before submission.

#	Question	Yes / No
1	Does the method statement identify the specific task and site location (not a generic description)?
2	Is the version number and date recorded, and does it match the risk assessment version?
3	Does the hazard register cover all categories: how people work, plant and equipment, chemicals/substances, and work practices?
4	Has the hierarchy of controls been applied (not just PPE listed as the first and only control)?
5	Is a named, competent supervisor identified for the task?
6	Are emergency procedures site-specific (correct muster point, nearest hospital, on-site first-aider)?
7	Has a toolbox-talk or briefing record template been included for operatives to sign?
8	Has the risk assessment been cross-referenced and does it align with the method statement's control measures?
9	Is there a review-trigger clause (change of scope, incident, material change)?
10	Have relevant certificates been referenced or attached (e.g., hot-works training, plant inspection, COSHH data sheets)?
11	Has the document been reviewed by someone other than the sole author before submission?
12	Does the method statement reflect the actual, current site conditions — not a previous project's document with the name changed?

Ramsdocs flags unanswered mandatory fields and version mismatches automatically before you generate the final PDF — reducing the most common reasons RAMS packs are returned for revision.

---

Common Method Statement Mistakes That Get Documents Rejected

1. Generic hazard lists copied from a previous job.
A PC reviewer who sees "falling objects" listed with "wear hard hat" as the only control for a hot-works task on a roof immediately knows the document was not written for this site. Specificity is the credibility test.

2. PPE as the primary control.
The HSE's risk management process requires you to consider whether you can eliminate the hazard altogether, then substitute, then engineer controls — PPE sits at the bottom. A method statement that lists PPE first suggests the hierarchy was not applied.

3. Sequence of operations that does not match how the work actually happens.
If operatives follow the actual sequence and not the documented one, the method statement is worthless as a briefing or defence document. Walk the task; then write the sequence.

4. No version control.
When scope changes mid-project and the method statement is not updated, the PC has no assurance that the construction phase plan reflects current conditions. CDM 2015 reg 12(4) requires the plan to be appropriately reviewed and updated throughout the project; an out-of-date method statement undermines that obligation.

5. Missing briefing records.
A method statement that no operative has signed to confirm they have read it is a document that exists only on paper — it provides no evidence that the information was communicated. The principal contractor's duty to consult and engage with workers about health, safety and welfare (HSE) is not discharged by the method statement alone, but an unsigned briefing record is a red flag.

6. Emergency procedures that are cut and paste from head-office templates.
Muster points, first-aider names, and hospital locations must be site-specific. A generic emergency section is the fastest way to signal that the whole document is not site-specific.

---

How Ramsdocs Creates, Version-Controls, and Shares Compliant Method Statements

Writing a method statement from scratch under time pressure — common when a subcontractor is called up at short notice — is where errors creep in. Ramsdocs addresses this at three points in the RAMS lifecycle:

Creation. Ramsdocs uses AI-assisted prompts to generate a task-specific draft method statement. Rather than filling a blank page, you answer structured questions about the task, site, people, plant, and substances. The output is a populated, section-by-section document built around the compliance structure above — not a generic template.

Version control. Every document generated through Ramsdocs carries a version number, timestamp, and author record. When scope changes trigger a review under MHSWR 1999 reg 3(3) or CDM 2015 reg 12(4), the new version is saved alongside the original, creating an auditable trail.

Sharing and sign-off. Ramsdocs generates a shareable PDF with a digital sign-off field, so operative briefing records are captured in the same document — not on a separate scrap of paper that goes missing.

Ramsdocs is a document-generation and management tool. Its outputs are designed to be PC review-ready and to reduce RAMS rework — but every document must be reviewed and adapted to the specific site and task by a competent person before use.

---

Frequently Asked Questions

Is a method statement a legal requirement?
No regulation uses those exact words. The legal duties are the risk-assessment record under MHSWR 1999 reg 3 and the construction phase plan inputs under CDM 2015 reg 12. A method statement is the standard industry mechanism for satisfying both duties, which is why principal contractors treat it as a practical requirement on multi-contractor sites.

What is the difference between a method statement and a risk assessment?
A risk assessment identifies what can go wrong, rates the likelihood and severity, and records what controls are in place. A method statement describes how the work will be carried out step by step, with controls integrated into each stage. They overlap on hazards and controls but are distinct in purpose. Combining them as a RAMS pack satisfies both duties in one auditable document set.

Who is responsible for writing a method statement?
The contractor carrying out the task. On CDM 2015 projects with a principal contractor, the PC reviews and approves it as part of their duty to plan, manage, and monitor the construction phase.

When does a principal contractor get involved?
A principal contractor is appointed by the client on any project involving more than one contractor. On such projects, subcontractors' method statements are reviewed by the PC to ensure they align with the construction phase plan.

Does a method statement need to be updated during a project?
Yes. MHSWR 1999 reg 3(3) requires the risk assessment — and therefore the method statement's hazard-and-control content — to be reviewed if there is reason to suspect it is no longer valid or if there has been a significant change. CDM 2015 reg 12(4) requires the construction phase plan to be appropriately reviewed and updated throughout the project.

Can I use a method statement from a previous project?
Only as a starting point. Every site has different conditions, access arrangements, emergency procedures, and operatives. A method statement that is not site- and task-specific fails the "suitable and sufficient" test under MHSWR 1999 reg 3(1).

What is the difference between a construction H&S method statement and a procurement method statement?
A construction health and safety method statement describes how work will be carried out safely and feeds into legal duties under MHSWR 1999 and CDM 2015. A procurement method statement (used in tender bids) describes an organisation's approach, capability, or processes. These are entirely different documents. This page covers the construction health and safety context only.

---

Disclaimer: The information on this page is provided for general guidance only. All method statements, risk assessments, and RAMS documents must be reviewed and adapted to the specific site, task, and contractor by a competent person before use. Nothing on this page constitutes legal advice or guarantees compliance with any regulatory requirement. Does a full RAMS pack need to include COSHH assessments as well as the risk assessment and method statement? Where the work involves substances hazardous to health, a COSHH assessment is a distinct and commonly expected element of the overall RAMS submission — not simply a subsection of the general risk assessment. The official source extract for construction method statements notes that certain regulations require specific risk assessments for particular hazards and lists "hazardous substances (COSHH)" as one such category, separate from the general MHSWR 1999 reg 3 assessment. In practice, principal contractors routinely request COSHH assessments alongside the RA and MS, with each assessment tied to an individual substance and cross-referenced to its Safety Data Sheet; a single project may therefore require several COSHH documents depending on how many hazardous substances are in use.