Instructions issued to civil servants about the Freedom of Information Act run counter to the intention of the legislation, say its critics.
The new circular which civil servants are required to sign is factually correct, concedes Ms Eithne Fitzgerald, who as minister steered the legislation on to the statute books. But she fears the effect will be to frighten people into withholding information.
The circular reminds civil servants that despite the Freedom of Information legislation only a handful of "designated officers" are allowed to give out information. This circular is the only communication many civil servants have received about how the Act is to be applied.
It further suggests that the most narrow definition is to be applied when giving information to the public.
If civil servants believed they were to be more open and transparent, the circular reminds them that if information is sought outside the Act then the restrictions of the Official Secrets Act apply.
All civil servants must now sign Circular 7/98 headed "Official Secrets Act" to indicate that they understand the restrictions now in place under the new Act.
Some critics fear that, far from promoting openness, transparency and accountability, the wording of the circular would scare any civil servant. Even the most mundane information would be best kept secret for fear of what might happen, they say.
The circular, which has been seen by The Irish Times, states: "Under the Freedom of Information Act, 1997, members of the public enjoy, inter alia, a legal right of access to information held by Government Departments and other public bodies. This right is subject only to certain exemptions. Arising from the Act certain officers will be given explicit responsibility under the Act."
The circular continues that the Official Secrets Act may have been amended, but that civil servants and former civil servants must avoid improper disclosure of information gained in the course of their official work.
Ms Fitzgerald said she was "concerned at the tone" of the circular.
It was not that the circular was inaccurate, but that it did not reflect the spirit of openness of disclosing information outside the Act.
Her own experience in using the Act had been more positive than the circular would imply. Rather than being restricted solely to information requested under the Act, she had received more than she was actually seeking.
The Irish Organiser of the National Union of Journalists, Mr Seamus Dooley, said the language of the circular reinforced the culture of secrecy that the Act was designed to end. "It clearly implies that the Minister for Finance and the author of the circular view Freedom of Information requirements as a burden that must be tolerated."
There was much in the circular which was common sense, but the tone and the tenor were "totally at variance with the spirit of openness proclaimed by the Minister of State, Mr Martin Cullen, when he launched the Act last month," he said.
The Official Secrets Act was now an anachronism which should be repealed, he said.
The stern warnings in the circular are also at variance with the manuals used to train information officers. Under the heading "Fundamentals", the manual says: "Work within the presumption of the Act in favour of the requester, work towards facilitating handling of requests and the granting of access to records."
The circular warns that civil servants will from time to time deal with particularly sensitive information, the release of which might put at risk the life or safety of an individual, pose a serious threat to the security, defence or international relations of the State, undermine the police or judicial process, adversely affect developments in relation to Northern Ireland or pose a serious threat to the economic interests of the State.
"Particular care should be taken of such information," it adds.