Dr. Paul Downes:

Our report to the EU Commission and our formal submission to the committee documents a whole swathe of research, particularly in the past decade, on the serious sustained, long-term impact of bullying on mental and physical health and educational engagement. Let us be clear, bullying is an issue that can cause anxiety, depression and self-harm and can impact on physical health. It is also an adverse childhood experience. It requires serious, sustained emotional counselling and therapeutic supports in schools, which we do not have in Ireland. We need those supports at both primary and post-primary levels. International research also highlights the point that victims of bullying tend to engage in cycles of self-blame, self-hate and a sense of hopelessness and fatalism. We need to stop these cycles of despair early, with early intervention, through these emotional counselling and therapeutic supports.

On the issue of family dimensions, which is neglected in many policy aspects, I draw the members' attention to a systematic review undertaken by Lereya et al.of over 70 studies that indicate that negative parenting practices, destructive communication practices and violence in the home have an impact on bullying engagement. Therefore we need to look at the family support services that I mentioned in respect of bullying. International research also points to the significant importance of having interventions which are not only whole-school in their approach but also involve parents. For example, Professor Donna Cross's work in Australia has highlighted the additional benefit of working with parents and not only taking a whole-school approach.

On the issue of peer defenders or challengers, our report for the European Commission highlights a range of legal and psychological concerns with the active bystander approach, which encourages bystanders to actively stand up to the bully. It is concerning from a legal perspective because it is reasonably foreseeable that the bully may retaliate against that peer defender or challenger, which puts them at risk of being bullied, with all the various long-term impacts associated with that. Our report therefore highlights that it would be negligent to put schools in a position where they would be actively encouraging students to intervene as peer defenders. That is not to undermine all of the excellent work on peer supports and student voices regarding bullying. However, on that aspect, our report criticises the psychological focus. There are many motivations that can explain why somebody may be a bullying perpetrator. We cannot just assume that the esteem of the group is the only dimension to that. There may also be long-term trauma and adverse child experiences for the perpetrator. As Sourander's longitudinal study emphasised, an entrenched bullying perpetrator is a red flag that something is wrong. Again that is an argument in favour of early intervention and the provision of emotional counselling and therapeutic support for the perpetrator.

Our report to the Commission emphasises the importance of the establishment of a national co-ordinating committee to drive these issues at a national level. At a school level, a driving committee that is led by a champion is required. It is notable that our own research of 2017 found that more than half of primary and secondary schools did not have a teacher designated as a champion to lead a whole-school bullying initiative, even though they were requested to do so by the bullying procedures.