An independent review ordered by the prime minister has called for a "radical change in the conduct, process and style of government communications".

Calling for an end to Britain's culture of secrecy, the Phillis review has set out its plans to address growing public cynicism about official communications.

Led by Bob Phillis, head of the Guardian Media Group, the report pressed for "more direct, unmediated communications to the public".

"We found a culture of secrecy and partial disclosure of information which is at the root of many of the problems we have examined," said the study.

In a damning indictment of current government media operations, the report concluded that the civil service "has not grasped the potential of modern communications as a service provided for citizens".

The prime minister has already accepted the need for changes in the way departmental media operations are run, with a new permanent secretary taking responsibility for government communications.

And the Government Information and Communications Service was lambasted as "no longer fit for purpose".

"We recommend that the government adopt a new approach and structures, replacing the existing network with a wider definition of communications professionals encompassing all those involved in communication activity and led by the new permanent secretary, government communications," said the report.

The prime minister has now asked the review group to complete its work, taking into account any recommendations which may emerge from the Hutton inquiry.

He has also asked the group to "reflect further on its view that the media too has a responsibility for balancing the need to scrutinise government communication, with a need to ensure that the adversarial relationship does not become a barrier to public understanding of government and politics".

The Downing Street official spokesman welcomed the "detailed and complex report".

He also confirmed that a new permanent secretary in charge of Whitehall communications would be appointed early in the Spring.

With growing criticism of the role of ministerial special advisers, the report also said there was a "lack of clarity in their relationship with civil servants".

"We recommend that new propriety guidelines and induction training should be developed by the permanent secretary, government communications to cover all those involved in communication, including special advisers. The principle of civil service impartiality must underpin these guidelines," it said.

Replacing the system of briefings to selected journalists, the report also called for a shake-up in the operation of the "lobby" system.

"We found that the lobby system is no longer working effectively for either the government or the media," concluded the review.

"We recommend that all major government media briefings should be on the record, live on television and radio and with full transcripts available promptly online.

"Ministers should deliver announcements and briefings relevant to their department at the daily lobby briefings, which should also be televised, and respond to questions of the day on behalf of the government."

While the chairman of the lobby defended the existing system in his evidence to the inquiry, the report rejected his calls.

"Both government and the media have seen their credibility damaged by the impression that they are involved in a closed, secretive and opaque insider process," warned the report.

The government accepted that the role of the lobby should be overhauled, adding that it would "now enter into discussions with the relevant public authorities, including parliament, and the parliamentary lobby, on how best to pursue these proposals".

Phillis also said that in order to reduce Whitehall secrecy, mandarins should maintain an "overriding presumption" in favour of publishing information.

Looking ahead to the full implementation of the Freedom of Information Act in 2005, the report urged ministers to recognise the benefits of maximum openness.

"There are some in government who fear that an effective FOI regime would worsen relations with the media by providing the national press with more ammunition with which to attack it. We do not think this argument can be sustained," concluded the review group.

"If politicians are concerned about what they see as selective or partisan reporting, the best antidote is openness rather than the current system where the use of information as a political weapon has contributed to the atmosphere of mutual suspicion between the government and the national media."

Phillis added that ministers should pledge not to use their right to veto the disclosure of information and that non-disclosure rules should only apply when the release of documents would cause "substantial harm".

But there was a lukewarm response from the government, with a statement saying only that the recommendations on freedom of information would be "taken into account" as the legislation is implemented.

However, there was also a call for journalists and media organisations to rethink their role in the way official information is communicated to the public.

"We found a three-way breakdown of trust between politicians, the media and the general public," said the report.

"We recommend that politicians and the media should consider the extent to which their behaviour might support or undermine the objective of these recommendations - to helprestore public trust in legitimate government communication."

The report added: "It is part of the role of a free press and media constantly to question and challenge government, but the media is not the government's opposition, and this illusion is potentially dangerous to the democratic process."

Reviewing the background to the current problems, the report also indicated that Labour largely had itself to blame for the current difficulties.

Since 1997 Tony Blair's government had moved to improve the effectiveness of government communications.

"Labour's past experience of handling the media, and its belief that government communications staff were not up to the mark, saw a rise in the media handling role of politically appointed, unelected special advisers," said the report.

"Their more aggressive approach and their increased use of selective briefing of media outlets, in which government information was seen to be being used to political advantage, led to a reaction from the media that has produced a far more adversarial relationship with government."