By Patrick Wintour, David Leigh and Rob Evans

February 1, 2006

Civil servants are refusing to accept a landmark ruling from the independent information commissioner which forbids them from routinely deleting their names before releasing documents.

Freedom of information campaigners yesterday condemned the practice of keeping identities secret. They were also angered by proposals from the lord chancellor, Lord Falconer, to reject outright many FOI requests on grounds of cost, by tightening up the rules about use of civil servants' time. Campaigners say this could block thousands of requests.

In his first major collision with Whitehall since the act came into force in January last year, Richard Thomas, the information commissioner, has issued a formal "decision notice" outlawing the removal of civil servants' names.

The Department for Education and Skills, the immediate subject of this month's ruling, has refused to accept it. Last night it said it was considering whether to appeal, a decision which must be made by tomorrow.

The Department of Trade and Industry, in a batch of documents released yesterday, once again deleted without explanation all its officials' names, including that of the trade minister Ian Pearson's private secretary, a senior Whitehall post.

The Ministry of Defence has refused to release its arms sales unit staff list on the grounds that officials fear attack by activists. The Home Office, one of the most uncooperative departments since FOI was enacted, also refused this week to stop deleting names. It claims it is acting on advice from the Department for Constitutional Affairs, and that disclosure would breach the act's privacy section.

Maurice Frankel, director of the Campaign for Freedom of Information, said erasing the names of officials was widespread and often absurd.

He said that the Foreign Office had even removed Nelson Mandela's name from documents it had released. The education department argued that officials could be less candid with advice to ministers if they thought their names might be disclosed.

In his ruling, made on January 4, Mr Thomas said: "A distinction can be drawn between information relating to someone's private life and information relating to their professional or working life. The information in question merely identifies civil servants as attending a meeting in their official capacity, or giving their professional advice."

Lord Falconer told the Guardian he was tightening up the costs rule because he found it extraordinary that civil servants' time was not being counted. He denied he was planning to start charging fees. A request for information can be rejected if the cost to the state is more than £600.

He said the civil service was being bothered by vexatious claims such as how many lavatories there are in the education department and how much each department spends on makeup.