The British Medical Association has submitted fresh evidence to the Armed Forces' Pay Review Body (AFPRB), calling for improvements in the remuneration of military doctors and dentists. The submission also provides a reminder of the part that independent organisations can play in the Armed Forces pay review process.
The BMA's Armed Forces Committee argues that military medical and dental officers' pay has fallen behind comparable NHS remuneration, potentially affecting recruitment and retention.
Its submission includes ten recommendations covering pay levels, allowances, career progression and improvements to the pay review process itself.
Among other measures, the BMA calls for a return to annual rather than biennial recommendations for military medical and dental officers, improved pay comparisons with NHS colleagues, and greater transparency in the evidence considered by the AFPRB.
The BMA is particularly concerned that differences between military and civilian remuneration could make Armed Forces medical careers less attractive.
Read the BMA's report – Call to boost Armed Forces doctors' pay.
The role of the AFPRB
The Armed Forces' Pay Review Body provides independent advice to the Prime Minister and Defence Secretary on service pay and charges.
Its recommendations take account of recruitment and retention, the particular demands of service life, comparisons with civilian employment and the Government's financial and policy constraints.
BAFF has long regarded the AFPRB as an important and generally effective safeguard for the interests of Armed Forces personnel.
Its annual reports are substantial, thoroughly researched documents, informed by visits, consultation and evidence from a range of sources. They provide valuable insights into the experiences and concerns of serving personnel, extending well beyond the immediate question of annual pay increases.
That independence is important, although the Review Body must operate within its terms of reference and the constraints imposed by Government.
BAFF has regularly reported on the AFPRB's findings and recommendations. We have also drawn attention to occasions when publication of its reports and recommendations has been delayed by the Government – something which should not be confused with delay or shortcomings on the part of the Review Body itself.
The AFPRB's 2026 report was published on 9 June. GOV.UK
Independent representation and Armed Forces pay
The BMA's continuing participation in the pay review process illustrates a principle which BAFF has supported since its earliest days.
There is no inherent conflict between independent representation of service personnel and an independent body responsible for making recommendations on their pay.
Indeed, the AFPRB's terms of reference expressly allow it to consider evidence from organisations other than the Ministry of Defence.
In 2006, during parliamentary consideration of the Armed Forces Bill, the then Chief of the Defence Staff, General Sir Mike Walker, expressed concern that the establishment of an Armed Forces federation would lead to the loss of the AFPRB.
BAFF challenged that argument, pointing to arrangements in other countries where independent military representation and established pay determination systems operated alongside one another.
The original discussion remains available in our archive: The British General and the Bosnia 'Mutiny'.
Twenty years later, the BMA's submission provides a useful contemporary illustration of independent professional representation contributing to the British Armed Forces pay review process.
What role for BAFF in future?
Pay and conditions of service have always been central to BAFF's purpose.
In practice, much of our contribution has been to explain and publicise the work of the AFPRB, draw attention to developments affecting service remuneration, and raise questions about aspects of the process where appropriate.
We have not sought to duplicate the Review Body's extensive research or its consultations with serving personnel.
Nor have we generally identified specific pay anomalies requiring a formal submission from BAFF. Any such submission would need to be based on sound evidence and informed analysis.
As BAFF moves towards a simpler and less resource-intensive organisational structure, we need to consider how best to maintain a useful role in this important area.
That may involve continuing to explain and publicise the AFPRB's work, encouraging informed discussion among members, or occasionally drawing attention to particular issues deserving closer examination. Where members have relevant experience or expertise, there may also be opportunities to contribute directly to the evidence considered by the Review Body.
We do not need to become a specialist pay research organisation to make a worthwhile contribution.
But neither should we lose sight of the fact that fair remuneration and conditions of service are fundamental concerns for Armed Forces personnel and their families.
Determining how a smaller, more flexible BAFF can best contribute to the discussion is among the questions we intend to consider as our reorganisation progresses.