There are two views about higher education which are more commonly held outside universities than within them. Both are largely shared by centre-right politicians and commentators. The first is that opening university education more widely has no value. The second that hoping to see more students from a wider range of backgrounds enter our most selective universities must mean lowering standards. Of course, there are those who confuse privilege with excellence, and some who think merit has no place in fairness. But neither speaks for the mainstream of higher education.

In truth, there's been a profound shift within universities over the past ten years. It is change that continues to move in the right direction and was exemplified in the university-authored report of the National Council on Educational Excellence. This is a good time to assess where we are. There are two issues at play. There is widening participation: opening our university system to students from a wider range of ages and backgrounds. And there is fair access: how we ensure that our most selective universities are genuinely open to talent from every part of society. Most progress has been made on widening participation; most controversy centres on fair access.

Some advocates of widening participation regard fair access as a sideshow. They rather resent the idea that all universities are not all the same. I think we are better off celebrating the diversity of our system. If we genuinely believe that any university can be the best university for the right student, then we should also accept that the education offered in a research- intensive university may be different to that in an institution focused on stretching and demanding vocational degrees. Not better, just different. As the Sutton Trust has shown, the more selective universities have not made too much progress in admitting more students from the half of society that has traditionally not gone to university. I don't believe that the social make-up of our most selective universities currently reflects the true distribution of talent and ability in our society. The real and live debate about fair access is how much responsibility selective universities should accept for tackling the problem. Can universities stop at the fair assessment of those who apply? Or should they do more?

The best reading of the NCEE report is that universities cannot possibly be expected to counter the entire educational disadvantage that may shape a young person's achievement, but that there is much they can and should do. Education is our most powerful tool for social justice, and it's also in the long-term interests of every university to attract the best talent from wherever it comes. My advocacy of these arguments is and will be unrelenting.

Of course, the biggest loss of talent is not at the admissions stage, but in the applications that are never made. Every university is now involved in extensive outreach to schools and young people, which stretches from primary schools to pre-application summer schools. Lasting, structured links with schools are more effective than one-off projects, and more than 80 universities are now involved with academy schools and school trusts. We're better - but not yet good enough - at raising the aspirations of school students and giving them advice and guidance. We're getting much closer to ensuring that all schools can offer the GCSEs and A levels that are a prerequisite for some competitive universities.

Pursued consistently, all this work will pay dividends in both widening participation and fair access. But it doesn't end the debate about the admissions process itself. Admissions policies should be published, should be transparent and should be implemented consistently within institutions. Admissions policies are, though, for universities themselves, not government, to determine. The HE Funding Council and the Office of Fair Access require universities to show they are making a serious effort but do not dictate the actions that they should take.

The Government will continue to argue the case for widening participation and fair access, but it is universities who are making the changes that are under way.

Cambridge has joined the UCAS admissions process. Oxford has ambitious plans to expand summer schools. This year 5,000 students, themselves from more disadvantaged backgrounds, will mentor similar students in schools. Selective universities themselves are generating new approaches. Some are confident that, provided they know a potential student well enough, they can flex entry requirements without lowering standards.

Nine selective universities are working together to find new ways of giving able young people the chance to show what they can achieve. It's likely that local school twinning or “compacts” will become a national scheme. Some may seek out strong students from schools that don't usually submit candidates and proactively offer them a summer school or other assessment.

Not every university will do the same thing. But I am clear that the direction of travel is a positive one. Contrary to the impression given by recent headlines, I spent a year in this job making no institutional criticism of either Oxford or Cambridge universities. And although I will always respond robustly to unwarranted criticism of the Government, the recent furore has really underlined how the media debate lags behind reality. The truth is less exciting, perhaps, than “minister in class war with Oxbridge”. But step by step we have our best chance of unlocking the talent too often wasted today.

John Denham is Secretary of State for Innovation, Universities and Skills

Times Recommends

• In the real world, the public sector must pay
• Playing politics in a land of double Dutch
• Be like the plinth people: not set in stone