In the past 10 to 15 years, significant efforts at various levels – national, international and European – have been made to establish legal and policy frameworks capable of dealing with the complex and multifaceted issue of human trafficking. While these efforts have resulted in the development of legal, policy and practical measures to identify and address the needs of victims, they have often fallen short of creating a system that recognises the vulnerability of children, treats them as children first and foremost, and recognises their agency, age and stage. This approach has maintained what is, in practice, a two-tier system of protective services, with the defining factor often being asylum and immigration, which is at odds with the existing UK children's legislation and practice.

Within the trafficking discourse, children and young people are generally addressed as a ‘sub-group’ of human (adult) trafficking (Wallace and Wylie 2011), rather than autonomous human beings with their own needs and vulnerabilities. While the specific vulnerabilities of children who have been trafficked have been highlighted (Rigby et al. 2012a), there has also been substantial debate about the agency of children in decision-making, especially in choices made to migrate and move away from exploitative/ abusive situations (O'Connell Davidson 2011). Within this debate there is also the issue of finding ‘durable solutions’ (UNHCR 2003) for children on the move.

The exploitation of children, whether through trafficking or other avenues, is child abuse. This chapter looks at the development of policy and practice in the United Kingdom, investigating why trafficking victims and survivors are treated differently to other abused children, often outwith the existing child protection and safeguarding process. While there may be specific vulnerabilities associated with children who are on the move and exploited, it is not altogether clear if children recruited and moved for the purpose of exploitation are any more vulnerable than other abused children, such that they deserve a place at ‘the high table of child suffering’ (O'Connell Davidson 2011), requiring their own specific response and support networks. However, when children are in situations of vulnerability risk increases, particularly when these children are seen differently and the support systems designed to care and protect children may be governed by various legislation.