Absolutely not. Especially when they use covert phraseology like "control savings" and such, to obscure the fact that they're really saying nothing. Declaring an amnesty suggests that there's lots of criminals about practicing social welfare fraud, when this simply isn't true. Why don't SF instead investigate how much, from the social welfare budget, is devoted to detecting fraud and spinning about it? That might result in some useful information.
One simple question would do the trick. What is the budget for social welfare investigations and how much actual money does it save, as opposed to "control savings" ?
SF would prefer, it seems, to roll around in the shíte with the other muck rakers, pointing out insubstantial and unsubstantiated bogeymen. Helpful? My arse.