Diane Taylor criticises both the coalition government for having "maintained a consistent narrative that child detention has ended", as well as the "adulation" of organisations like Citizens UK, who campaigned so hard for this historic change (Still locking up children, 24 October).

She argues that "the government's own data relating to numbers of children detained proves this is not true". She is not comparing like with like. We have ended child detention as it existed under Labour and as we said we would in opposition. We always argued that the immigration system would still need to deal with both exceptional cases and border cases. And the contrast between the new system and what existed just two years ago could not be starker.

Under Labour, thousands of innocent children were locked up, often for weeks at a time. It was Citizens UK's tireless campaigning that made this an issue of public concern and then held the government's feet to the fire to end this barbaric practice and reach a solution acceptable to the communities most affected. Working together, we succeeded.

When we first met, 30 families from Uganda alone were locked up in prison-like conditions. Today, none are. We worked together to design an alternative that has the welfare of children at its heart. Far from being a "mixed bag", as Taylor suggests, we feel that the recent HMIP report shows we have got it right. Importantly, the new measures we have taken, such as the Independent Family Returns Panel, have ensured that the vast majority of children and families can stay in their communities before returning home.

Those who can't are accommodated in the new "exceptional facility" – Cedars, which consists of nine self-contained, family-friendly apartments and is a world away from the infamous family unit at Yarl's Wood (which was closed by the coalition government). Barnardo's provides emotional support and educational play to help families and children understand the process they are going through. Cedars is required because there will always be exceptional cases in which families, who the law says should be returned home, need a decent stopping off point before they can board a plane. This is a necessary part of a civilised but effective immigration system.

Much of Taylor's argument is predicated on the use of "ordinary immigration centres such as Tinsley House, near Gatwick". Tinsley House is nothing of the sort. The newly refurbished facility is used for border cases. It has never been used as an "overflow facility" and never will be – not least because that is one of Barnardo's red lines.

The fact is we have always made clear that it would still be necessary to hold some families at the border who have been refused entry. Otherwise, we would simply have no border controls for anyone with children. In these cases, every effort is made to put the family on the very next flight available. Sometimes, however, there is a short delay, and they are transferred to more family friendly facilities at Tinsley House before their flight.

Taylor may have a different view of how the immigration system should be run and how "detention" is defined. But she should not accuse the government of "doublespeak" because what we are doing does not fit with her view. To say our system evokes "the same concerns that existed about child detention in its previous incarnation" is to both ignore the scandalous situation under Labour and insult those, like both of us, who campaigned for its end and are proud to have brought it about.