Which political parties or MPs have cited expert critiques of the £22bn figure and on what evidence do they rely?

1. Two different “£22bn” stories — same number, different evidence

Reporting shows two principal uses of “£22bn”: the IFS’s estimate of how much the government needs to find to stabilise public finances ahead of the 26 November Budget (cited in coverage of Chancellor Reeves), and the earlier £22bn reported as the cost of England’s Test and Trace programme where MPs on the Public Accounts Committee judged there was no clear evidence it reduced COVID infections ^{[1] [2] [3]}.

2. Which parties or MPs cited the IFS critique on the public‑finances £22bn?

News reports quote the Institute for Fiscal Studies’ headline figure — that at least £22bn is needed to stabilise borrowing and meet fiscal rules — in coverage of Labour chancellor Rachel Reeves’s Budget choices. Outlets summarise the policy challenge and say the Chancellor warned there would be “no easy choices” after the IFS estimate ^{[1] [2]}. The sources do not provide a systematic list of individual MPs across parties who invoked the IFS number; they chiefly frame it as a central macroeconomic benchmark shaping Reeves’s speech ^{[1] [2]}. Available sources do not mention a roll‑call of specific MPs or opposition party spokespeople who cited the IFS figure.

3. Who cited expert critiques of the £22bn Test and Trace bill — and on what evidence?

A cross‑party group of MPs on the Commons Public Accounts Committee (PAC) explicitly criticised the £22bn NHS Test and Trace programme, saying there was “no clear evidence” it reduced infection levels and questioning whether its costs were justified; the PAC’s conclusions formed the basis for MPs’ public critiques ^{[3] [4]}. Reporting makes clear this was a parliamentary committee report, i.e., MPs from multiple parties reached the judgment after examining departmental evidence and performance metrics ^[3].

4. What expert evidence did MPs rely on in the Test and Trace critique?

The PAC’s finding that there was “no clear evidence” came from its assessment of the programme’s data and outcomes — specifically that it was unclear the scheme’s contribution to reducing infections had been demonstrated, coupled with concerns about inconsistent capacity matching, heavy contractor reliance and unclear value for money ^[3]. The committee’s report functioned as the vehicle for the MPs’ critique; the available summaries emphasise PAC analysis rather than external academic rebuttals ^{[3] [4]}.

5. How parties used the numbers politically — competing narratives

On the Budget‑gap £22bn, reporting shows the figure being used to justify tough fiscal choices by Labour’s Treasury while media and commentators frame it as an IFS technical estimate of borrowing risk ^{[1] [2]}. For Test and Trace, MPs across the political spectrum (via the PAC) used the committee’s expert scrutiny to challenge government procurement and management decisions during the pandemic ^[3]. The sources show both technocratic (IFS, PAC) inputs being politicised by parties but do not map every partisan claim (available sources do not mention fuller lists of party statements).

6. Limits and gaps in the reporting

Available sources summarise headline findings and cite committee or IFS judgements but do not compile a complete roster of which specific MPs or party spokespeople repeatedly cited the critiques in parliamentary debates or media appearances (available sources do not mention a full list). Where sources do name actors, they emphasise institutional voices — IFS and PAC — rather than exhaustive individual attributions ^{[1] [3]}.

7. What readers should watch next

If you want to trace who in parliament kept returning to either £22bn line, look for Hansard records of Budget debates and PAC hearings (to identify named MPs and party interventions) and for direct IFS/PAC publications for the underlying evidence cited in media summaries ^{[2] [3]}. Current reporting establishes the institutional critiques (IFS, PAC) and shows they were cited in political coverage, but a precise, itemised tally of every MP or party using those critiques is not present in the provided sources (available sources do not mention that tally).