New Armed Forces Commissioner must prove true independence

The appointment of the UK’s first Armed Forces Commissioner has been framed as a landmark moment. And yes, an independent champion for service personnel and their families – on paper at least – signals a shift in how the UK intends to listen to and support those who serve.

But action needs to follow scrutiny. And that scrutiny must be truly independent.

Polly Miller-Perkins CBE brings more than three decades of experience in the Royal Air Force, including operational deployments and senior leadership roles. That lived experience of service life is being positioned as one of the role’s key strengths, and rightly so.

For those of us working closely with service personnel, including here at Bolt Burdon Kemp, and in my case, also as an appointed member of the Veterans Advisory and Pensions Committee, this development will feel both welcome and familiar.

Welcome, because the need for stronger independent oversight has been evident for years. Familiar, because many of the issues this role seeks to address – unacceptable behaviour, failures in the complaints system, and systemic welfare concerns – are the very same issues that continue to bring clients through our doors.

A step in the right direction

The creation of the Armed Forces Commissioner follows growing recognition that morale, retention and trust within the Armed Forces have been under strain.

The role is intended to act as a direct point of contact for personnel and families, with powers to investigate issues ranging from accommodation and equipment to inappropriate or harmful conduct. The Commissioner will also have the ability to visit defence sites unannounced, gather evidence, and report directly to Parliament, to hold the Government to account.

There is also a clear expectation – at least that’s how the role is being presented – that the Commissioner will act as a robust and independent voice, capable of challenging both the chain of command and Government where necessary.

On its face, that represents a meaningful evolution.

The reality on the ground

However, optimism must be tempered with experience. At Bolt Burdon Kemp we regularly represent service personnel who have experienced unacceptable behaviour, often over prolonged periods, before meaningful action is taken. Many describe a lack of confidence in internal systems, particularly when raising complaints about senior personnel or entrenched cultural issues.

The introduction of a commissioner does not, in itself, resolve those underlying problems.

Indeed, the success of this role will depend less on its existence and more on how it is exercised in practice. The language around accountability and speaking truth to power is encouraging, but it must translate into action. Without that, and without the resources and political backing to act decisively, there is a risk that the role becomes symbolic rather than transformative.

Independence is the key question

The Government has emphasised that the Commissioner will be independent. That is essential. But independence is not simply a matter of statutory wording. It is tested in difficult cases, particularly those involving allegations of bullying, harassment, discrimination, or other forms of unacceptable behaviour.

From our work, we know that these cases often involve:

• Power imbalance within the chain of command
• Cultural resistance to external scrutiny
• Delays and inefficiencies in the complaints process

If the Commissioner is to command trust, they must be seen to operate outside of those pressures. Experience within the Armed Forces is undoubtedly valuable, but it also raises a legitimate question of whether the Commissioner will be sufficiently removed from the system to challenge it effectively?

For clients, the Armed Forces Commissioner may offer an additional avenue for raising concerns, particularly where internal processes have failed. This is to be welcomed.  But it is unlikely to replace the need for independent legal advice or representation. Where individuals have suffered harm, whether physical, emotional, or mental, the role of specialist solicitors remains critical in ensuring accountability and securing appropriate redress.

At Bolt Burdon Kemp, our work has long centred on protecting those who protect us. That includes advocating for systemic change, not just individual outcomes. The Commissioner could play an important role in that broader landscape, but it is only one piece of the puzzle.

It would be wrong to dismiss the development. The establishment of an Armed Forces Commissioner reflects a growing recognition that more must be done to protect service personnel and their families. That is progress.

But equally, it would be naïve to assume that structural change alone will resolve deeply rooted issues.

The real test will come in the months and years ahead.