I thought I'd got it all worked out for my retirement," the middle-aged man shrugged. "I was wrong, wasn't I? If you can't trust the banks, who can you trust?" I have been holding meetings in my Swindon constituency to discuss the recession and there is a palpable sense that much of what we took for granted no longer applies. Globalisation has amplified the effects of the economic cycle, with unpredictable consequences, and this has come on top of other profound changes. Populations are ageing; traditional family structures are being transformed; there are tensions between individual fulfilment and a desire for social discipline; and climate change threatens the future of the planet.

So much is in flux and many who thought themselves secure will suddenly find they are not. In such an uncertain world people need to know their rights and freedoms will be protected, whatever happens around them, and that others, including governments, will behave responsibly towards them. So tomorrow the government is publishing a green paper on rights and responsibilities. We believe it is time to discuss whether our existing safeguards are sufficient or if this country needs a new expression of freedoms and responsibilities and the values that underpin them. This comes at a time of uncertainty and anxiety, and tackling the global economic crisis must be the immediate priority. But acting, at the same time, to strengthen communities' and individuals' sense of their stake in society, by better articulating the responsibilities we owe and the rights we have, is not an alternative to decisive action on the economic front — it is an essential complement.

These issues are not abstractions, removed from jobs, housing, healthcare and education. Constitutional arrangements determine how power is distributed and how every other question in our public life will be answered. So they are not just about the historic protections of the individual against the state and balancing liberty and security. They are also about overcoming the daily frustrations of public life, the tin-eared in government and town hall. They are about the hunting ban and the smoking ban. And about tackling the discrimination and prejudice many still have to endure. Constitutional reform is never easy as it collides with vested interests. It raises difficult questions about how best to strike a balance between the individual and the community, between the rule of law and parliamentary democracy, how far politicians should be fettered by the courts and how best to balance accountability of the executive with decisive government.

The government is committed to this process. Our reforms are redistributing power away from Westminster to administrations in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, to London and to local authorities. The Human Rights Act has put fundamental rights of the individual against the state at the heart of our domestic law. The Freedom of Information Act has established transparency as a mechanism to empower the individual against the state and the Data Protection Act safeguards privacy.

Why go further? First, the government believes we need to respond to the individualisation of society and the pressures of change by bringing out more clearly a sense of responsibility for the rights of others and balancing individual rights with public good. These notions are inherent in human rights instruments, including the Human Rights Act, but they have not been sufficiently transparent. And they should be. The Human Rights Act entrenches fundamental freedoms, as pensioners wanting to live out their days together, the Countryside Alliance and newspaper proprietors have all found in seeking its protection. Scrap it, as some Tories want, and you run the risk of destroying such freedoms and limiting the ability of the courts to interpret European judgments for British circumstances. The issue is rather to ensure the limits of such fundamental rights are properly understood, recognising they have to be balanced by responsibilities and a recognition of the public good.

Second, healthy constitutions evolve through debate. And debate is what we now want to start. There may well be a case for not creating new rights outside the scope of the courts and it is the government's view that parliament remains the most appropriate forum for making politically sensitive decisions on resource allocation, but there is much to celebrate in the rights we enjoy, for example, through our public services, which could merit more explicit constitutional expression. Words have power in their own right. They can move us and mould our society, even though they are not law. It's more than 300 years since this country last had a Bill of Rights. It has served us well but it is time to explore whether we need a new one.

Michael Wills is the justice minister

Times Recommends

• Strip away the figleaf and reveal naysayers
• Dave’n’George: there may be trouble ahead
• I do not accept that £64,000 a year for politicians is peanuts