THE Constitution Review Group has opposed inserting neutrality into the Constitution. It also advises against "absolute Cabinet confidentiality" and suggests a less restrictive rule.

The group, headed by Dr T.K. Whitaker, also recommends that the Constitution be amended to provide for a senior minister to replace the Taoiseach and Tanaiste when neither of them is available to act.

On the question of avoiding protracted deadlock in the formation of a government after an election, or if a government falls, the group rejects the idea of a fixed Dail term but favours the introduction of a "constructive vote of no confidence".

This would mean that the Dail would have to nominate "an alternative Taoiseach" when voting a motion of no confidence.

It says the idea "merits serious consideration" and would avoid bringing the President into party politics.

This is the 10th Provisional Report of the Group and deals with Article 28 of the Constitution on the powers of the government. The Government yesterday approved publication of the report which along with the nine others will be studied by the Oireachtas all party group to be set up shortly to recommend on changes to the Constitution.

In its introduction, the report says that concern for constitutional checks on government action should not "fetter" its ability to decide and act in the public interest and should "enhance that capacity" if possible.

The group advises against increasing the present limit of 15 on the size of the government. But it has a curious passage that could be seen as referring to the present position of Democratic Left, on the danger that in a coalition government "small parties may be able, through the coalition formation process, to achieve an influence in government, particularly if their representatives become ministers, much greater proportionately than their electoral or Dail strength."

The report says that this "apparent democratic anomaly" does not need to be addressed in the Constitution and "can be solved on the political plane".

Cabinet confidentiality is also referred to in the report, although it is not in its terms of reference. The Group is not in favour of absolute Cabinet confidentiality as was laid down in the Supreme Court when the matter was referred to it from the Tribunal Inquiry into the Beef Processing Industry.

The reports says that "while it is not considered realistic or appropriate to insist on absolute cabinet confidentiality, there are strong grounds for extreme caution in any approach to the relaxation of the rule". The report also points out that the rule does not apply to government decisions which are formally recorded.

The Group has an interesting observation on how an outgoing government which has lost a vote of confidence should behave while waiting for a new government to emerge. It should take care of "absolutely essential business only (refraining, for example, from making any nonessential appointments and not deviating from the status quo in any significant way)."

But the Group advises against "any constitutional limitation"

being placed on such a caretaker government as it "could give rise to uncertainty as to the validity of actions taken during such a period and to legal challenges against such actions."

The group also calls for a three year limit on any future state of emergency instead of the present indefinite period.