Blood Transfusions during the Falklands War

Debate between Jim Shannon and Dan Carden

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.

Combat Sports for Children: Safeguarding

Debate between Jim Shannon and Dan Carden

Tuesday 8th July 2025 Commons Chamber

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I commend the hon. Gentleman; this is a very difficult subject and he is speaking with admirable compassion and understanding. I am sure the family appreciates that. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that while there is a moral duty and a legal obligation to protect children and young people in sport through the creation and promotion of a safe environment that protects them from harm, each sport has different requirements when it comes to fulfilling that obligation? While it is reasonable that a football coach does not need to lay hands on a child in any case, it is also reasonable that a karate instructor must position children, and that must require regulation and Government action. Does the hon. Member agree that there must be a sport-by-sport approach to safeguarding and regulation?

[Dan Carden]

I am grateful to the hon. Member for being here tonight, and I know that the family will be grateful for the interest he has shown. I will go on to talk about the lack of regulation and what the family are calling for.

I know that the family would want me to thank the coroner in this inquest—Michael Pemberton—for his approach to Alex’s case. He described the match that Alex was part of as “chaotic and somewhat disjointed”. There was no national governing body oversight, and no clear or enforced safety standards. Gordon Mitchell, head of welfare and governance at Kickboxing GB told the inquest that the organisation would never sanction a light contact bout in a ring. He explained that such matches are permitted only on mats, where mitigating factors such as fighters stepping off the mat allow referees to step in, in the event of a mismatch or escalating risk.

On the broader framework governing children’s participation in combat sports, the inquest heard that standards around safety, medical oversight and safeguarding vary widely, and in many cases are absent all together. In the words of the coroner, the level of confidence in organisational safeguards that people would expect to exist within the sport is “sadly lacking”.

If a match is unofficial or unsanctioned, there is no guideline minimum standard that must be met to provide safeguarding for a child participant, no minimum standard of medical support that might be required, no maximum rounds, no periods of rest, no welfare checks on participants, and no risk assessment and critical incident plan. It should stop us all in our tracks to learn that in this country, children can be placed in combat situations without clear, enforceable national protections.

Alex’s family did everything right—everything a loving family would do. They encouraged him to get involved in a range of sports and activities and supported him when it became clear that he had a talent for kickboxing. They enabled him to thrive in what he loved doing and to become a six-time world champion. However, as the inquest made clear, they and Alex were failed by a lack of safeguarding, responsibility and regulation.

Every single day, children up and down the country take part in activities like Alex did. They lace up gloves, put on headgear and step into training halls and rings, with no minimum standards in place to ensure their safety. Parents who just want the best for their children, and who want them to be fit and healthy, to enjoy sports and to discover and nurture their talents are sending their children to participate in contact sports without realising the risks. Many people do not know that there are sanctioned and unsanctioned bouts, or what that means in terms of safety. Many people do not know that there is no one governing body for kickboxing and that membership is not mandatory.

That is the shocking reality exposed by the inquest into Alex’s death. It is the reason the coroner took the highly unusual step of issuing to the Department for Culture, Media and Sport a regulation 28 prevention of future deaths report before the inquest had concluded. In that report, he raises concerns that

“there is no guidance or regulation of contact sports involving children’s participation.”

He says that

“action should be taken to prevent future deaths”

and that the Government

“have the power to take such action.”

I welcome the fact that the Secretary of State has tasked her Department with exploring ways to urgently improve the safety and welfare of children in martial arts and combat sports and to ensure that it is always a priority. Urgent action must follow, and I would be grateful for any further update that the Minister can provide today. What Alex’s family are demanding is simple: clear, enforceable national protections for children in combat sports. That would replace the current patchwork in which there is no consistency in rules, no oversight and no accountability.

From this tragedy, a better system must emerge. We owe it to Alex and to his family, we owe it to every parent who believes in good faith that their children are protected by the rules operating around sport and we owe it to every child who steps into a ring or on to a mat, trusting that the adults around them are keeping them safe. No child should lose their life participating in a sport they love.

I finish with the words of Alex’s parents:

“Our lives have been changed forever. Alex’s future was taken—and with it, part of ours too. We miss him every second. Now, all we have left are memories, but we also have the responsibility to make sure his death was not in vain and for his sake we will make sure we do that.”

We cannot bring Alex back, but we can ensure that his legacy is one that prevents such a tragedy from ever happening again.