Liberals have a proud record of opposing state intrusion into daily life.  I learned the story of the Liberal role in liberating UK citizens from compulsory ID cards after the end of the Second World War when I was first a student Liberal.  That was, after all, a form of ‘Stop and Search’, giving police and other public officials the right to demand that any one of us walking along the street or coming into an office can prove who we are.  Harry Willcock, who refused to show his ID card to a policeman and afterwards tore it up outside the National Liberal Club, was an active Liberal. His successful appeal against prosecution was led by Emrys Roberts (then a Liberal MP) and Basil Wigoder (a future chair of the party and peer).  Nick Clegg described Harry Willcock as one of his greatest heroes when opposing the last Labour Government’s efforts to introduce identity cards.  Labour’s legislation to introduce a national data base for citizens, with cards to carry, was repealed by the coalition government, with active Liberal Democrat support.

Requiring every citizen to carry a card, to be produced whenever challenged by a police officer, would be an extension of ‘Stop and Search’ which all Liberals would oppose.  But I have become persuaded that opposition to the integration of government data bases is now mistaken, that moves towards a form of digital ID have advantages, and that we should focus instead on ensuring adequate accuracy, transparency and security – and access for citizens to check.

The immediate trigger for raising this is the publication of a government paper on ‘Our Strategy for modern and secure elections’, which sets out plans to move from our antiquated, locally-based electoral registration towards an Automated Voting System (AVR).  An estimated 8 million UK citizens are missing from our electoral registers, because they move too often, because their landlords have not passed on the forms, or because local officials have failed to find them at home when conducting an electoral canvass.  Almost all of them are registered on several government data bases – with National Insurance numbers (NINOs), NHS numbers, tax returns or driving licences.  We are supposed to inform those parts of government with which we interact of changes of address, but often forget to do so – and one Department does not inform another when we do so.  AVR would draw on data bases from across government.

My change of mind on government data bases came during the Windrush scandal.  The Home Office alleged that there were no reliable records that these immigrants from the Caribbean had lived and worked in the UK for decades.  But cross-checking with the DWP and the NHS would have established their presence and protected their rights.

My generation already have a range of numbers which – in an uncoordinated fashion – identify our relations with the state.  I am frequently asked for my NINO as proof of identity; I also have a tax reference number, driving licence, passport number, an NHS and two hospital numbers.  I worry more that the weaknesses of NHS IT might mean that in an emergency a hospital might fail to find my records than that linking up these data sources would infringe my privacy.

The younger generation have a much more relaxed approach to digital privacy – or perhaps they largely ignore the details of their lifestyles and preferences, their credit ratings and spending habits, that Meta, Google and Amazon hoover up.    Liberals concerned with liberty and privacy in our digital world should focus on establishing safeguards against the misuse of such data, whether in private or in public databases.

Liberal Democrats will disagree on whether moves to a government scheme on digital ID should be voluntary or compulsory.  If voluntary, well-educated and prosperous citizens will opt in, while others stay out or miss out – which, for me, makes the case for a universal scheme. Those who are not clearly identifiable will continue to lose out – not only from electoral registration, but also from benefits to which they may be entitled. But others may see any universal scheme as taking us towards the surveillance state.

I am not an expert in the digital field – though I was caught up in the coalition’s discussions about a voluntary government ID and the duplication of statistical data collected through the Census and through other agencies.  The party has many digital experts, however, to advise us on the costs and benefits, risks and advantages.  Data sovereignty is an issue when Conservative governments have outsourced so many databases to American companies.  Treatment of non-citizens resident in the UK is important and politically delicate, touching on immigration, illegal working and forced labour.  We need to learn from the approaches that Nordic and Baltic states have been taking, focussing on citizen access to data held on them and on a single entry-point to government information.  What we should not do is to resist the idea of digital ID altogether.  It has long-since arrived in the private sector. We should concentrate on regulating it carefully, both in the private and public domains.

* William Wallace is LibDem peer, a former vice-chair of the Federal Policy Committee and convenor of the party's 1997 manifesto team.