Blood Transfusions during the Falklands War

Dan Carden Excerpts

Tuesday 11th November 2025 Commons Chamber

[Dan Carden (Liverpool Walton) (Lab)]

It is an honour to follow the debate we just had in this House on remembrance and the contribution of the armed forces, and to have joined the public in marking Remembrance Sunday at St George’s Hall in Liverpool this weekend.

I am grateful for the opportunity to lead this debate on blood transfusions during the Falklands war. The reason I have secured the debate is primarily to tell a story—a rather remarkable story on behalf of one of my constituents, a veteran of the Falklands war. It is the story of blood transfusions that saved his life, but, as he later discovered, came at a profound cost.

My constituent, who prefers to remain anonymous, was a young man with 3rd Battalion, the Parachute Regiment. In 1982, his life was on the cusp of a new chapter —he was engaged to be married—but the outbreak of war put his future on hold. In the early hours of 12 June, during the fierce overnight fighting for Mount Longdon, he was severely wounded. After a 10-hour wait, he was evacuated to the hospital ship SS Uganda.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I commend the hon. Member on securing this debate, and I spoke to him beforehand. Does he not agree that the story of these British servicemen saved through blood donations from the ARA hospital ship is one of those times when honour in war was demonstrated? Does he not further agree that we must ensure that every man and woman trained to serve under our flag knows the obligations of duty and honour when they wear that noble uniform?

[Dan Carden]

Absolutely, and I will develop the hon. Gentleman’s points.

To return to the story of my constituent, after that 10-hour delay and his move to the SS Uganda, he recalls waking from surgery to a nurse at his bedside who told him—I am quoting from his own testimony—that he had been

“filled up with Argentine blood”.

At the time, he thought nothing of it. He was simply grateful to be alive, surrounded as he was by those who were more seriously injured and knowing that many of his colleagues were not so lucky. He accepted it and got on with his life. He eventually married in 1985, and he and his wife have just celebrated 40 years of marriage.

However, the consequences of that lifesaving transfusion emerged years later. In 1993, after donating blood, he was diagnosed with hepatitis B. His wife and children were required to undergo preventive vaccinations. Later, he endured a brutal battle with kidney cancer, losing both kidneys and surviving five years on dialysis until a lifesaving transplant in 2017. Throughout that, the question of the origin of his hepatitis B lingered.

Reports about the infected blood scandal back here at home resonated deeply with my constituent, yet he finds himself in a cruel paradox: the Ministry of Defence, the institution he served, has so far refused to even acknowledge the fact that he received Argentine blood, saying only that it does not hold any recorded information related to blood transfusions during the Falklands war. Determined to get to the truth, my constituent began to conduct research into the events surrounding his blood transfusion. I must say, the evidence that he has gathered is astonishing. It includes records, telegrams, photographs and testimonies from all the people involved. That evidence pieces together a timeline of events, which I wish to share with the House tonight.

First, we must understand the logistical reality aboard the SS Uganda prior to my constituent’s injury. On 28 April 1982, the ship took aboard 360 units of blood from the Army blood supply depot at Ascension Island. Records kept by the ship’s crew, and obtained by my constituent, show that by 10 June, after expiries and transfers to other units, the SS Uganda was left with just 46 units of blood.

On 4 June 1982, the senior medical officer of the SS Uganda, Surgeon Captain Andrew Rintoul, met the captain of the Argentine ship Bahía Paraíso. Captain Rintoul’s own written account confirms that the Argentines

“generously offered to supply Uganda if urgently needed”

in accordance with Geneva rules. That urgent need arrived just days later, when the SS Uganda received 160 new British casualties, mainly from the bombing of the RFA Sir Galahad on 8 June. The numbers speak for themselves: how could 46 units possibly treat so many severely wounded patents?

Secondly, we have testimony from the medical professionals involved. From the British side, a senior nursing officer who served aboard the SS Uganda, told my constituent that she was aware that

“some supplies came from the Argentine hospital ships.”

Another former SS Uganda nurse recalls the “unique encounter” with the Bahía Paraíso, stating that blood was obtained from it for British patients.

From the Argentine side, the evidence is even more direct. My constituent has contacted several doctors who were aboard the ARA Bahía Paraíso. The biochemical lieutenant stated that the Argentines provided a considerable number of sachets of blood to the SS Uganda. He said:

“I swore the traditional and ancient Hippocratic oath. For that reason, both you and we treat the wounded regardless of which side they belong to.”

Another Argentine doctor, who physically visited the SS Uganda via the Bahía Paraíso’s Puma AE-506 helicopter, was asked whether English patients received Argentine blood. His answer was simple and definitive:

“Yes, sir, they received Argentine blood. We brought it to them.”

My constituent also managed to contact the sergeant aboard the helicopter, who confirmed:

“On 10 June 1982, we transported 250 litres of blood from hospital ship ARA Bahía Paraíso to hospital ship SS Uganda. We met several times to exchange wounded and medicines—a great example of military medical care in combat.”

In fact, the exchange was commended in Argentine media as part of the 40th anniversary of the war.

My constituent has dozens of photographs showing the Puma AE-506 helicopter landing on the SS Uganda; British and Argentine doctors and crew members together aboard the SS Uganda; and the SS Uganda plaque gifted to ARA Bahía Paraíso in thanks. It is important to state clearly that my constituent holds no ill will towards the medical staff—British or Argentine—who saved his life. He is grateful. They acted under the extreme duress of war, making a humanitarian choice in the best interests of their patients. Yet, that act of salvation also had lifelong consequences for him, and if it happened to him, it is likely that others among the hundreds of casualties treated after that date were similarly exposed. Should there not be an effort to identify and contact those veterans, to ensure that they too are aware?

The exchange between the ARA Bahía Paraíso and SS Uganda is no secret; it is a documented historical event. The evidence provided by my constituent is overwhelming, credible and drawn from multiple sources. All he is asking is that the Ministry of Defence acknowledges what the evidence so compellingly demonstrates. The refusal to do so is a heavy burden for him; it prevents him from achieving closure and, potentially, from seeking the specific recognition and support that may be available to him for a service-related illness.

My ask of the Minister this evening is simple: for the truth to be officially recognised. I urge her to meet my constituent and me to review the extensive dossier of evidence that he has so painstakingly assembled over the years. Then, we may finally recognise what the historical record already shows: that he and others received Argentine blood transfusions on the SS Uganda.

This is about according a veteran the simple dignity of truth. He served his country with great honour. He bore the physical and psychological wounds of that service. The very least he deserves is for his country to look at the facts and acknowledge what happened. I hope the Minister tonight can give him and this House a commitment to do just that.

--- Later in debate ---

[Louise Sandher-Jones]

I thank the right hon. Member for his intervention.

In relation specifically to blood transfusions aboard SS Uganda during the Falklands war, the MOD has made extensive inquiries and concluded that it does not hold information in relation to these. I reiterate that I am speaking about MOD files rather than other forms of evidence that exist, as my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool Walton said. It has also concluded that any detailed information on the source of blood used is unlikely to have been recorded in medical records during this period.

[Dan Carden]

I am grateful to the Minister and to the right hon. Member for New Forest East (Sir Julian Lewis) for their guidance. My constituent is frustrated; he has done extensive research, spoken to many people and been able to amass evidence, and I think what he would really appreciate is the Minister committing departmental time and energy to look at some of the evidence that he has acquired.

Fiscal Policy: Defence Spending

Dan Carden Excerpts

Monday 27th January 2025 Commons Chamber

[Luke Pollard]

The strategic defence review will be published in spring this year, and the path to 2.5% will also be announced in spring this year.

[Dan Carden (Liverpool Walton) (Lab)]

I am grateful to the Minister and his Department for setting out the need for increased defence spending because, like so many here, I believe we are living through a change of era where the assumptions of globalisation and multilateralism are being refuted by reality, and it demands the renewal of our modern productive power in defence and the civil economy. The simple reality is to that build strong alliances, we must maintain and build our autonomy. Is it not the case that the one key fact about all this is that to maintain a good relationship with the United States, we will have to spend more on defence?

[Luke Pollard]

I agree with my hon. Friend that we have to spend more on defence. I think everyone in this House agrees with that, and that is why this Labour Government are spending more on defence: an extra £2.9 billion as announced in the Budget and a pathway to spending 2.5% of our GDP, which will be announced later in the spring.

Oral Answers to Questions

Dan Carden Excerpts

Monday 6th January 2025 Commons Chamber

[Luke Pollard]

I thank the hon. Member—my fellow south-west MP—for her advocacy of that as well as the people of Bath who have opened their homes to so many Ukrainian families, as have families right across the country. It is vital that we continue to support not only Ukraine to stay in the fight to protect its sovereignty and freedom but those Ukrainians in the United Kingdom and in Ukraine to ensure that they can go about normal life as much as possible. The Government support that work and will continue supporting Ukraine for as long as it takes.

[Dan Carden (Liverpool Walton) (Lab)]

The Secretary of State and the Minister have put Britain’s military production capability at the heart of the Government’s support for Ukraine. I wonder what opportunities the Minister spies for transatlantic co-operation in that regard. May I make a special plea that the whole defence team discuss plans for developing our industrial capacity with regional mayors so that jobs and factories can be set up and developed around the country, including in regions like my own?

[Luke Pollard]

It is vital that we continue to support Ukraine and build our industrial capacity in the United Kingdom and across the NATO alliance to ensure that Ukraine can fight not only tonight but tomorrow. Part of that is about increasing the industrial supply of not just UK manufacturers but indigenous manufacturers within Ukraine itself. Building that greater industrial capacity is something that the Government take seriously. That is why the Secretary of State and the Minister for Defence Procurement and Industry have published the outline of the defence industrial strategy. We will continue to work with partners at both national and international level—and additionally at a regional and local level—to ensure that we have the industrial capacity and skills required to restock our own supply and continue to support Ukraine.

Defence: 2.5% GDP Spending Commitment

Dan Carden Excerpts

Monday 11th November 2024 Commons Chamber

[John Healey]

We do not need a summit to release the interest on the frozen assets—the corrupt Russian money—as we are doing that already. The Chancellor and I are working closely on that, and we have announced that, from early next year, £2.3 billion will be available for Ukraine for that purpose. I give the hon. Lady the assurance that we will pursue a UK-EU security pact, alongside the deep bilateral agreements we have already started to strike, including the one last month with Germany, which was the most comprehensive defence agreement this country has signed in many years. Finally, the hon. Lady is right—I have argued this before—that at a time of increasing global threats, European nations in NATO must do more of the heavy lifting. We must be prepared to spend more on defence, but we must also be prepared to work together to increase the level of deterrence we can offer to those who would do us harm.

[Dan Carden (Liverpool Walton) (Lab)]

Was President Trump not right in his first term, when he pushed NATO countries to increase defence spending? The numbers have gone from six countries meeting the 2% target back in 2021, up to 23 countries meeting the target now. Is this not serious, because if President Trump makes decisions on Ukraine in his second term, we might be faced with a choice either to accept those decisions or to step up and ensure Europe’s defence ourselves?

[John Healey]

I welcome the fact that 23 NATO nations will hit the 2% spend this year. I regard that as a floor, not a ceiling. The UK, under Governments of both parties, has always spent well above and set the pace for other European countries. We will continue to do that, because European countries in NATO must take on more of the NATO leadership. We are determined that the UK will do that, which is why we have said that our approach to defence will be a NATO-first policy. We will, wherever we can, look to be first in NATO, so that we set the pace on the sort of transformation to the better equipped, better able and more lethal forces that our nations need to deter adversaries and to defend ourselves if required.

Ukraine

Dan Carden Excerpts

Tuesday 10th September 2024 Commons Chamber

[John Healey]

The right hon. Gentleman asks a question with a good deal more information than the rest of the House. I will write to him with the detail he seeks rather than trying to give a superficial answer from the Dispatch Box.

[Dan Carden (Liverpool Walton) (Lab)]

I welcome the Defence Secretary’s statement, especially what he said about the deepening military and industrial strategy between the United Kingdom and Ukraine. There is clearly a growing alliance building between Russia and Iran, united in undermining democracy and risking further proxy wars. Will the Defence Secretary give his assessment on how the UK Government seek to influence Iran?

[John Healey]

My hon. Friend follows these matters closely and speaks with authority in the House on these things. We have been warning—in fact, the previous Government were warning too—about the deepening security alliance between Iran and Russia. Part of the declaration, made alongside international partners, at the NATO summit in Washington warned Iran that any transfer not just of drone technology, but of ballistic missile technology to Russia would be regarded as a significant escalation. The House can take a broader lesson from my hon. Friend’s point: Iran’s destabilisation is not a malign influence that is simply felt throughout parts of the middle east, but has wider repercussions, which is why Iran is one of the most serious threats to this country in the future.