It was with great interest that I read Professor Lovibond's paper, not the least because of the fact that before returning to the UK in 1991 I had spent approximately 2½ years working in Australia. In his article Professor Lovibond charts the history of behaviour therapy in Australia and comments on the current academic and professional situation there. He raises issues concerning scientific rigour, clinical practice, service delivery, and professional organisation. Some of these are general issues and many readers from many places around the world will find sympathy with these. Others are relevant to the local circumstances within Australia and are less pertinent to other countries. My first reaction to the article was surprise that problems within clinical psychology were being aired at a World Congress of Behaviour Therapy and within a behaviour therapy journal. This is perhaps explained by Professor Lovibond's view that behaviour therapy is too narrow a term for what is really clinical psychology and should be so entitled. But from a UK perspective there is here a confounding between the theory and practice of behaviour therapy (I will use the term cognitive-behaviour therapy as being more reflective of current thinking) and the profession of clinical psychology. I will devote most of this short article to outlining the situation in the UK so that it can be seen why Professor Lovibond's suggestion that behaviour therapy and clinical psychology are synonymous would not be readily acceptable in the UK. Firstly, I would like to comment on the situation regarding behaviour therapy before briefly describing that of the profession of clinical psychology.