A method statement should enable the person to carry out the works, even if they have never done the job. Teaching to suck eggs comes to mind. The devil is in the detail. The higher the risk the greater the need for step by step. All of the safety parts IE PPE, equipment, traffic management, materials etc, should be listed in other areas, the method statement should be formed from the risk assessment, and is how to complete the works.

Chris Sorry never answered your question correctly, yes you are correct, he should be writing the method statement, he is the one who knows the workings. Paul is correct saying you should help with the RA and safe systems.

Chris, I've dropped you a couple of PC guidelines that we've received over the last year. Regards Jonathan

The problem that we all have here is that there is no legal requirement for a method statement, no definition of what a method statement is and no specified format. Everybody has their own pet idea of what should be in such a document and off we go on the merry go round of creating more and more useless paperwork. Let's remember that what we are talking about here is a SAFETY method statement and not a full blow by blow description of how the work is done. This document is intended to be information for the people involved in the work and not some kind of back covering exercise for the client. If you have done suitable and sufficient risk assessments for the work to be done then all that is required, in my opinion, is some detail of the specifics of what is to be done, where it will be done, by whom and with what. Such as site; date; access arrangements; protection arrangements if working adjacent to a "live" road or railway etc.; plant and equipment; PPE; any PTW arrangements; employees and supervisors involved; special instructions pertaining to the site or the activity and a reference to the risk assessments. Anything more than this is just unnecessary paperwork.

I'd normally agreee BUT try telling certain PC's that you won't amend your current Method Statements to THEIR format and you'll find they threaten to take business away. I've had that problem with one who will remain nameless obviously. We also had one to do for an alcoholic drinks conglomerate that refused us access as our MS wasn't good enough and to their format. They sent us their format and i had to remove the majority of our MS to fit in their tiny boxes so in fact couldn't put in all the important info that was needed (obviously our staff had the proper ones from us as well) so it would have been interesting if any incident had happened and the HSE got involved as i suspect they may have been hit hard with a visit to go through all of their preocedures. They laughably approved our MS even though it wasn't anywhere near good enough then, but again not much we can do if they have such poor understanding of how people work in construction and any allied industries to that.

This is a subject very very close to my heart at the moment. As client H&S I am getting ever more angry that so many contractors appear to think they have to record everything at least three times. Once in their HSMS standard documents, once in a risk assessment template and again in a method statement template..... What a waste of everyones time and effort. And what a laugh that so many are on templates - and actually OMIT the site-specific stuff that might actually be important (e.g. - recent example - all operatives to be competent and trained, all to wear appropriate PPE, welfare unit to be provided blah blah blah.. No mention anywhere AT ALL of the 30metre sheer cliff less than three metres from where the work was going to happen - or the controls needed to make the work safe! Nor of the very low 132kV overhead line at that location... Whilst the contractors may be competent in construction (I have led or assisted in most of the competency assesments, so I have to believe they are...) I sometimes despair at the lack of competence of the people who write some of the documents. My view - RAMS are written to supplement the general way of doing things (company procedures, trade training etc., reviewed previously by the client, and well understood / trained to all the workforce) with site- or task- specific information needed to get the job done safely. Nothing less, and (PLEASE) nothing more and more and more.... (HINT - the project I am on has one contractor who has target-estimated a need for upwards of 5,000 risk assessments / method statements for his section of the project... If I have to read 10,000 times that only CSCS card holers will be allowed on site - I swear I'll swing for someone!) Big Rab and Tabs - Spot on.. Steve

Steve, Another example for you as to how onerous PC's can be on checking RAMS... We might be putting up temporary fencing and using the following items. Mesh Fence Panel Couplers Blocks RAMS rejected due to the PC's templated checklist stating all tools must be PA Tested and we haven't stated they would be. The fact that we didn't mention any portable electric tools and i don't know how we'd PA test a spanner... The site manager then had to request their H & S Department to give the ok for it to be passed without PA details which wasted two days...at their own expense. Would like to be joking (bit early for the friday thread) but you can understand the frustration that us as a subcontractor (and other subcontractors) have with stupidity from Site managers and the like who can't make their own decision without going through a centralised H & S office.

I'm coming in late on this thread so I'll just post what I generally do/provide/assist with regards to Method Statement, usually I'm helping a contractor to submit one to a builder. The aim is to achieve what the client wants and to provide all the info that RayRapp mentioned in his posting. The MS we produce is in two parts. Part 1 is the step-by step how the job is accomplished: delivery, unloading, access to work area (e.g. work at height), setting up the work, PPE, installation, task etc. tidy up, leave site and any notes on COSHH, confined space, permits etc as appropriate. The text in the Part 1 will refer at times to other documents, e.g. to points raised in the Risk Assessments, and it will also refer as appropriate to sections in Part 2 of the Method Statement which is in effect a document of the site rules and the site/client policy with reagrd to the main H&S subjects e.g. asbestos, lifting operations, manual handling, dust, weather, first aid, work at height. The aim is to avoid muddling the step-by-step instructions with too much detail, and to avoid 'writing out Part 2' every time there's a new Method Statement, though of course if something in Part 2 changes or doesn't apply then that is noted. Hmm, sounds complicated until you get into the swing of it :o) Chris (OP) your client seems to be looking for more in 'Part 1' as he knows most of what is in 'Part 2' ? JohnW

I can understand 'giving them credit' for a job that is only slightly different from the previous 7 months, but in your initial post you said "are they loosening fastenings, drilling them out or cutting them off? How many men required to handle a sheet of cladding safely", and if they are doing such tasks then seems like it involves manual handling, tools, dust, risks of cuts and eye injuries (hopefully asbestos survey or absence confirmed) etc so sounds like a good candidate for a 'proper MS' to me :o) JohnW

Thanks everyone, lots of food for thought now.

quote=BigRab] .......So, ..... maybe we should start standing up to these jobsworths and making it clear to them that WE are the professionals and WE will decide what is necessary. It may leave us a bit impoverished but think of the sense of satisfaction we would have in defending our integrity!

I have just re-written 2 method statements to reflect what the PC's site manager wanted to see before allowing our men to continue. There is no great shortage of detail in our documents, but because he holds the power and can stop our work, he has done. He reckons that an MS should be so written as to describe to a novice or casual onlooker how something is installed or put together in great detail. We have worked for this particular contractor for five or more years with only minor re-submissions required, but this latest site manager is surely taking the biscuit. Apart from downing tools yesterday and my additional man hours, he has now got the company of our Contracts Manager for hours today. Meanwhile, we are happily delivering quality finished work to his colleagues' sites all over England from the same starting point, ie our MS and competent committed workforce.

This thread is going longer that I first imagined, it is obviously of interest to more than a few. I will say at this point that as I asked the question re the amount of information required I have been on the other side of the fence recently when I poo pooed an electrical contractor's method statement because it was merely a one pager with no detail at all on his safe working or safe isolation procedures. I will never tell an electrical contractor how to carry out his work but this one needed to say more. (The Client that employed the electrical contractor questioned me about my decision so really been on both sides). I have also sent back a one page so called method statement and risk assessment issued by a plumbing contractor who was about to start work installing a full blown central heating system into a home for retired persons, not mention of the gas supply/safety or thermostats controls or anything like that. I do think I was justified in both cases.

Hang on a mo! - As professionals we can advise what is actually required, and I agree that clients often over egg their requirements [I well remember the Network Rail 50+ page long Method Statements of old], BUT if the Client [or PC as 'quasi client'] decides that he wants more than is strictly necessary, then you give him what he wants. He's paying the bills after all.

Ron, all well and good but if as I say above the CDM-C is virtually anonymous how can he determine anything. The Designer even issued the PCI to me and that does not specify the exact requirements for info in a method statement, just that they require copies of everything.

Going off topic, but does "safe systems of work" really need a definition within the Act? The dictionary definition of "system" should be sufficient?

Must be the weather.