In December 2025, the Greater Lincolnshire Combined County Authority (GLCCA) launched a consultation on its proposed changes to adult skills funding within the region. It is estimated that an £18 million Adult Skills Fund will be devolved to Greater Lincolnshire for the academic year starting August 2026 with the Department for Education set to confirm the amount in February 2026.
The Bell Foundation’s response
We responded to the GLCCA consultation with a focus on two areas:
1) The reintroduction of the 3-year residency requirement for learners to access free skills provision. This requirement was removed by central government from the 1 August 2025. The GLCCA propose: ‘The money saved by reinstating the three-year residency requirement will be redirected to provide more free or partly free training opportunities for adults residing in Greater Lincolnshire. It will not be used for anything other than the adult learning programme.’
2) The de-funding of ESOL provision within Lincolnshire, where £1 million was spent in 2023/24 to deliver ESOL courses to 1427 learners within the region. GLCCA proposes that this money will be diverted into literacy provision for residents and that: ‘Residents who want to learn to speak English could access commercially available courses, funded privately, or access free online learning.’
Residency Rules: Re-introducing the rule for the length of time an adult must live in the UK before being able to access free training or subsidised training through the Adult Skills Fund
The economic evidence suggests that maintaining the flexibility to offer training before the three-year residency requirement provides significant benefits to the local economy by enabling workers to enter the workforce sooner and contribute to the region's economy. Reinstating a three-year residency requirement may create a period of enforced inactivity that undermines the development of local human capital and prevents community cohesion. Proficiency in English serves as one of the essential foundations for broader integration and productivity. By improving an individual's ability to communicate in English and to do so in a way that enables them to use their existing skills, early training facilitates more active labour market participation and more efficient access to essential public services and education without having to rely on potentially more costly translation and interpretation services.
Delays in accessing training can lead to significant human capital waste and a lack of social integration. It is most often a lack of proficiency in English which prevents individuals from being fully able to utilise their existing skills. For example, Altorjai (2013) found that male immigrants in the UK are 24% more likely to be over-qualified for their current roles compared to UK-born employees. Nearly half of new arrivals to the UK possess tertiary-level education, yet without language support, many are forced into low-skilled, low-wage roles that do not utilise their professional expertise. This suggests that without immediate access to skills support, the local economy loses out on the high-level expertise that many residents already possess but cannot apply due to communication barriers.
The value of proficiency in English is traditionally measured through three distinct economic lenses: the increased probability of gaining employment, the enhancement of an individual’s long-term earnings potential through improved occupational choice, and the prevention of under-employment or skills mismatches. Research conducted by Dustmann and Fabbri (2003) using independent UK data sources confirms that proficiency in English and literacy are directly tied to labour market performance. Their findings suggest that greater proficiency allows individuals to acquire better information during the job search process and makes it easier for them to demonstrate their qualifications to prospective employers, especially in roles requiring a high-level of communication skills.
Without early intervention, a lack of English proficiency leads to measurable earning losses and significantly lower employment probabilities.
Evidence from international policy reforms further supports the argument for prioritising early and intensive training over long residency waiting periods. A study of Danish policy (Arendt et al., 2021) demonstrated that increasing the duration and mandate of language training for refugees and reunited family members resulted in significant and persistent positive effects on employment rates. These benefits accrued gradually and persisted in the long run, with those receiving the training being four percentage points more likely to be employed than those who did not.
By removing the three-year waiting period, the current policy has ensured that the workforce can contribute to the local economy at the earliest possible opportunity and improve social cohesion. Reinstating the three-year rule in Greater Lincolnshire may therefore risk the negative economic consequences of chronic under-employment and delayed integration that these other regions and studies have sought to avoid.
By integrating language support directly into skills and vocational training, the speed through which residents become net contributors to the economy is increased. When an individual already possesses a valuable trade or skill set and the desire to work, enforcing a three-year waiting period for support serves no economic or social purpose. Instead, providing immediate, targeted English tuition tailored to their specific industry ensures they become "work ready" in a fraction of the time, allowing the local economy in Lincolnshire to benefit from their expertise sooner and fostering deeper community integration.
De-funding of English for Speakers of Other Languages (ESOL) provision
Areas of Lincolnshire possess significant numbers of residents with little or no proficiency in English. In Boston, 5.2% of the population are self-reported in the 2021 Census as having little or no English, the 18th highest council area in the country. South Holland ranks 65th in the country with 2.9% of residents speaking little or no English.
English proficiency is the single most important factor in determining the employment outcomes of residents who speak other languages. Data from the 2021 Census indicates a stark disparity in economic participation, showing that individuals with high English proficiency have employment rates of 78%, which is nearly identical to first language English speakers, while those with low proficiency see their employment rates plummet to 35%.
By withdrawing support for ESOL, the authority risks institutionalising this employment gap, leading to a long-term loss of tax revenue and – potentially – an increased reliance on social security, with possible consequences on integration.
Diverting ESOL learners into literacy provision is an inadequate substitute for their specific learning needs. Literacy curricula are designed for native speakers with existing oral fluency, focusing primarily on reading and writing. Conversely, ESOL learners require foundational instruction in syntax, phonology, and oral communication – all elements literacy programmes do not address. Research shows that this mismatch disadvantages learners through inappropriate assessments and a lack of language scaffolding, resulting in slower progress and significant barriers to professional integration in the UK. This approach is therefore likely to be a much less effective use of public funds.
For the residents who would lose access to classes because of this proposal, the replacement of ESOL provision with entirely online or app-based learning will not adequately address their learnings needs. While such provision can effectively complement structured language teaching outside of the classroom, it rarely tailors content suitably to meet learners’ needs should they be learning English for social integration or to seek employment. Learners benefit the most from teaching which reflects their own ambitions and the contexts in which they will be using English – both key factors that algorithm-based learning simply cannot address.
The economic cost of removing ESOL funding is also exacerbated by the "skills mismatch" it creates. Proficiency in English allows residents to engage with their children’s schools, navigate the healthcare system efficiently, and participate in democratic life. Removing this pathway to communication risks creating isolated communities and increasing the long-term costs of public service delivery due to a lack of mutual understanding between residents and service providers.
Ultimately, the evidence suggests that investment in ESOL helps to move individuals away from state dependency and into the active workforce. The decision to remove all exemptions and funding for these qualifications would likely lead to lower regional productivity and higher social costs, counteracting the intended benefits of redirecting the Adult Skills Fund.