Sightsavers’ submission to IDC inquiry on Future of UK aid and development assistance

November 2025

About Sightsavers

Sightsavers is an international development organisation which works with partners to eliminate avoidable blindness, eliminate neglected tropical diseases (NTDs) and realise rights for people with disabilities in more than 30 countries in Africa and Asia. Our programmes also work to ensure quality inclusive education and strengthen health systems.  We are also part of the Inclusive Futures consortium including leading the FCDO’s flagship Disability Inclusive Development programme with the International Disability Alliance. As members of the Bond coalition of UK INGOs, its Disability and Development Group, the Action for Global Health network and the Send My Friend to School coalition, we also endorse those submissions.

Key questions

1. How should the Government be prioritising UK Official Development Assistance in the coming years? 

In the context of a reduced ODA budget, it is critical that the UK prioritises spending where there is the greatest need, retains the core focus of ODA on poverty as set out in the International Development Act, and continues to meet its international obligations. People with disabilities, who make up 16% of the world’s population, are amongst the poorest in any society. They are more than twice as likely to miss out on going to school, likely to die 20 years earlier because of poor health, half as likely to be in employment and up to four times more likely to be injured or killed in climate-related disasters and humanitarian emergencies.  80% live in low- or middle-income countries[1].

The UK has made significant progress in embedding disability inclusion within its development work including through the now FCDO Disability Inclusion and Rights Strategy and has made substantial investment in understanding how ODA can reach and benefit people with disabilities. Stepping back from this agenda now risks undermining the work done to date and deprioritising those who are most in need of and can most benefit from ODA. In its December 2024 response to the Committee’s Third Report on FCDO and Disability Inclusive Development, the Government highlighted progress in ODA programmes marked as ‘significant’ or ‘principal’ against the OECD-DAC disability marker from 18% in 2018 to 35% of the FCDO bilateral portfolio[2]. While the UK should remain committed to increasing this percentage over the next spending review period, we would also urge that the FCDO maintains a twin-track approach to disability as endorsed by the Government in the same report as mainstreaming alone will not be enough unless accompanied by targeted support.

While we recognise that a reduced aid budget is likely to result in a move away from large service delivery programmes, this should not mean a reduced focus on supporting governments to strengthen systems which provide essential public services. Supporting the development of equitable education and health systems should remain a core priority for the UK’s ODA spending, given the importance of these to long-term development for individuals and societies.  We are particularly concerned about the indication of the scale of the reduction in spending on education and support the submission made by the Send my Friend to School coalition.

Low- and middle-income countries are increasingly recognising and prioritising disability rights, demonstrated by the rapid introduction of disability policy around the world. However, this commitment is not yet being followed through with sufficient financing. While increased domestic financing is critical, ODA can play an important role in supporting the development of national and local systems where governments develop and embed their own inclusive approaches. For example, to date, Inclusive Futures has leveraged £9.3 million in financial commitments from local governments to support disability-inclusive education, sexual and reproductive health services, livelihoods and social protection initiatives within their regular work[3].

In setting priorities on health, the UK should also consider where it can have the most value. For example, supporting countries in their response to health challenges such as the elimination of Neglected Tropical Diseases which disproportionately affect the poorest and most marginalised people, is one area where the UK has had a demonstrable impact whilst supporting long-term investments in stronger health systems.

2. How does the UK’s delivery approach for a) development and b) humanitarian assistance need to adapt to the changing funding and values landscape?
3. What needs to change to realise the goal of moving from paternalistic models and relationships to partnerships?

Taking the two questions above together, a genuine partnerships approach should not only see governments as development partners but also recognise and support civil society organisations as core actors. For example, the UK has played a key role in funding disability movements for more than a decade. Flexible and core funding to Organisations of Persons with Disabilities (OPDs) enables them to play an important role in engaging with their own governments, increasing accountability and ultimately the effectiveness of development assistance. Sightsavers’ Equal World campaign for disability-inclusive development has recently collaborated with partners in a consultation with young people with disabilities. What was clear is that young people with disabilities want to participate as leaders of change, and that education and meaningful inclusion remain cornerstones of effective partnership.

4. How should the Government be communicating the results of UK aid, and its importance, to the public? 

While public support for development is undoubtedly at a low ebb given the domestic economic situation, there remains public support for the provision of healthcare, education and humanitarian relief in low-income countries, particularly among supporters of the current governing party.

There is still much to be proud of, to celebrate and to communicate around the successes of the UK’s international development programmes, despite the current reflections and thinking around future models. Part of this is the undoubted value for money of supporting health, education and other programmes in regions of the world where the domestic resources are simply not there or where the state is unable to provide those services for other reasons.

If, as is stated government policy, there is an aim to return to the UK’s international obligations of providing 0.7% of GNI in ODA, however that is categorised or focused, then there remains a need to make that case publicly and, alongside an improved domestic economic situation, rekindle the UK public’s understanding and support for the impact that less than one pence in the pound can have.

The UK government has in the past had a constructive relationship with the UK’s international development community in the promotion of both the rights and equity narrative on the importance of the UK’s ODA contribution, as well as the national interest argument around international development leadership supporting both Britain’s global role and influence and its bilateral relationships around the world.

The Government needs to maintain this relationship, particularly including Bond and its members, in order to make that case effectively. Those organisations have strong links with millions of British citizens who make regular and active commitments to international development work and these individuals and communities form a powerful base to rebuild broader public support for development.

5. How can the UK Government align its development work with taxpayers’ expectation, and ensure value for money?

We would like to refer the Committee to our submission to its inquiry on Value for Money, particularly the point that this should not be narrowly defined as reaching the most people with the least amount of money which can exclude hard to reach groups[4]. Rather, equity must be a central feature of any fair and effective VfM framework where success is measured not simply in crude financial terms but in how well programmes uphold rights, foster inclusion, and deliver lasting benefits for all citizens.

We would however also highlight evidence collated through Inclusive Futures and the FCDO Disability Inclusion Helpdesk of the macroeconomic and firm-level benefits of investing in and removing barriers to disability inclusion in terms of productivity, innovation, consumer demand, tax revenues and freeing up existing public spending[5].  This again underlines that disability-inclusive development is not only essential to ensure no one is left behind but can also be a good long-term economic investment for UK aid and taxpayers.

6. Where is reform needed in multilateral agencies and development banks the UK is a member of, and funds? 

Conversations around reform of multilateral institutions are critical to ensure that institutions can respond to current and future challenges.  

The UK will not be able to effectively contribute to discussions on reform if they step back from financial commitments to multilateral agencies and funds. The upcoming Global Partnership for Education replenishment is an important moment for education financing and the UK must ensure that its pledge to GPE is reflective of the important role the partnership plays in strengthening national education systems including for those who may otherwise be excluded.

The UK has played an important role in promoting inclusion within multilateral agencies and development banks, but there is still significant progress that needs to be made. The UK should maintain a focus on ensuring the reforms promote inclusion and equity, not just between countries but also within them. Embedding inclusion and equity as institutions go through reform make them more efficient and effective in the long run.

7. What is needed to achieve the Government’s objectives in terms of transforming its role to one of an investor from that of a donor? 

Any shift from donor to investor must be underpinned by a set of core principles to ensure that investment promotes equitable approaches to development and does not inadvertently exacerbate inequalities. Models and approaches should not increase the debt burden on countries, should prioritise supporting public services over private provision, and embed equity and human rights. The approach should also consider the broader funding ecosystem and not add to the fragmentation of funding.