Since the introduction of automatic enrolment in October 2012, almost all larger employers have enrolled their workers in a workplace pension, thereby increasing the number of people saving for retirement. Employer compliance has been high and the proportion of people choosing to opt out from automatic enrolment has been lower than expected. The Department for Work & Pensions, the Pensions Regulator and the National Employment Savings Trust and other pension providers are now facing the more difficult task of supporting 1.8 million small employers through automatic enrolment. They will need to monitor the experiences of small businesses-including 900,000 employers with only 1 or 2 employees-and minimise administrative burdens, while also ensuring that increased enrolment translates into adequate incomes in retirement. We will be returning to this subject, which is of vital importance to both employees themselves and to future governments as they plan for pensions, and we have asked the Department to update us on progress over the next 12 months

A six year investigation by HM Revenue & Customs (HMRC) has resulted in Google paying a further £130 million to settle its corporation tax liabilities over the last 10 years. This vindicates the previous Committee's concerns in 2012 and 2013 that Google did not appear to be paying the full tax it owed in the UK. However, in the absence of full transparency over the details of this settlement and how it was reached we cannot judge whether it is fair to taxpayers. The sum paid by Google seems disproportionately small when compared with the size of Google's business in the UK, reinforcing our concerns that the rules governing where corporation tax is paid by multinational companies do not produce a fair outcome. Google's stated desire for greater tax simplicity and transparency is at odds with the complex operational structure it has created which appears to be directed at minimising its tax liabilities. Google admits that this structure will not change as a result of this settlement.

Survival rates for cancer patients in England have generally been worse than those in other high-income countries in Europe, mainly because patients in England tend to be diagnosed later and have poorer access to treatment. The government set up the Cancer Drugs Fund in 2010 to improve access to cancer drugs that would not otherwise be routinely available on the NHS. In the last five years about 80,000 people received drugs through the Fund. However, the Department of Health and NHS England do not have the data needed to assess the impact of the Fund on patient outcomes, such as extending patients' lives, or to demonstrate whether this is a good use of taxpayers' money. NHS England overspent the Fund's �480 million budget for the two years 2013-14 and 2014-15 by �167 million. The cost of the Fund grew from �175 million in 2012-13 to �416 million in 2014-15, an increase of 138% in two years, but NHS England did not start to take action to control the cost until November 2014. There is agreement that the Fund is not sustainable in its current form and NHS England and the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) are currently consulting on proposals to reform the Fund from April 2016. We expect NHS England, in making changes, to take account of our recommendations and apply the clear lessons from the last five years to ensure that the new Fund is managed better in the future.

We acknowledge that Universal Credit has stabilised and made progress since the previous Committee of Public Accounts first reported on the programme in 2013. However, there remains a long way to go. Implementation of Universal Credit so far has focussed mainly on the simplest cases and the Department for Work & Pensions has again delayed the programme. The completion date for the roll-out of its new digital service is six months later compared to when we looked at the programme only a year ago, and the Department now expects that Universal Credit will be fully operational in March 2021. The Office for Budget Responsibility forecasts that there will be a further six-month delay beyond the Department's latest planned end-date. We remain disappointed by the persistent lack of clarity and evasive responses by the Department to our inquiries, particularly about the extent and impact of delays. The Department's response to the previous Committee's recommendations in the February 2015 report Universal Credit: progress update do not convince us that it is committed to improving transparency about the programme's progress.

The last time we discussed rail franchising was in 2012, in the wake of the collapsed competition for the InterCity West Coast franchise. We are encouraged that, since then, the Department for Transport has strengthened its capability to let franchises, but there are still gaps in its ability to then manage the contracts effectively. The Department's increased focus on the passenger experience is also welcome, but it is unclear when passengers themselves will actually see the benefits. Furthermore, the Department has not yet developed the partnerships with operators that are required to support innovation, improve efficiency and improve services for passengers. Successful rail franchising depends on strong interest from the market and effective competition but there are barriers to entry to the UK market and the possibility that current participants in the market may drop out. Any reduction to the current level of competition is a major risk to securing value for money for the taxpayer. Perhaps the biggest challenge facing the Department is to manage the complex interdependencies between passenger rail franchises, the infrastructure that train services run on and the introduction of new fleets of trains to the network. Uncertainty about infrastructure work has resulted in delays to franchise competitions and the Department will have to rely on potentially expensive changes to franchises during the life of contracts. The Department's role is to provide a strategic lead for the complex rail system but it has not yet shown that it has embraced this role. It needs to provide a coherent strategic vision and stronger leadership to ensure that the investment decisions it makes now do not result in increased costs in the long term.

On current projections the Home Office's e-Borders programme and its successors will cost over a billion pounds, be delivered 8 years late and not provide the benefits expected for transport carriers and passengers. A major reason for this delay was the termination by the Department in 2010 of its e-Borders contract with Raytheon. This had required Raytheon to deliver its own solution to meet the Department's objectives to a fixed price and timescale which turned out to be unrealistic as government had detailed and evolving requirements, and wanted high assurance that the proposed solution would work. The Department was emphatic that our borders are secure. However, the Department needs to accept that its assertion that it checks 100% of passports is both imprecise and unrealistic due to the complexity of our border. It is now five years since the e-Borders contract was cancelled yet the capabilities delivered so far still fall short of what was originally envisaged. Since 2010 the Major Projects Authority has issued seven warnings about these programmes. The Department's complacency about progress to date increases our concerns about whether the programme will be completed by 2019 as the Department now promises, and whether tangible benefits for border security, transport carriers and passengers will result.

Over 4 million people in England have a neurological condition. Services for people with these conditions are not consistently good enough, and there remains wide variation across the country in access, outcomes and patient experience. As well as affecting patients, poor care has implications for the NHS; for example, it costs �70 million to deal with emergency admissions of epilepsy patients and many of these admissions are likely to result from shortcomings in care. Neurological services remain poorly integrated with a lack of joint commissioning of health and social care. Over 40% of people with a neurological condition do not think that local services work well together, and only 12% of people have a written care plan to help coordinate their care. There has been some progress in implementing the recommendations that the previous Committee made in 2012, including the appointment of a national clinical director for adult neurology and some improvements in data. However, these changes have not yet led to demonstrable improvements in services and outcomes for patients. It is clear that neurological conditions are not a priority for the Department of Health and NHS England, and we are concerned that the progress that has been made may not be sustained. We therefore intend to review the position again later in this Parliament.