Aimée L Felton 2012

46 Five •Two The orthodox vision of the Heritage Bill FIVE stopped short of recommending a complete recasting of current legislation, consequently approving the continuation of the top-down command process and reinforcing the predominantly reactive rather than proactive approach to maintenance within the conservation profession. In 2006, the current Secretary State for Culture (Tessa Jowell, now Shadow Minister for the Cabinet Office) stated the governments’ indifference by recommending the ‘[return] of ownership [of the nation’s] heritage back to the local communities themselves’ (DCMS. 2006).This new governmental approach, if ever implemented, would reduce the informed consistency of support available for heritage protection and further halt the campaign for new prioritisation and developed standards for the improvement of awareness within the profession towards maintenance. Whilst maintenance is perceived as fundamentally ‘good’ for the conservation and protection of listed buildings, as well as the related stability it provides to national GDP, it is not reflected in current policy. Throughout the academic and conservation maintenance sector, there was much hope for reform through the first legislation to directly affect the profession for thirty years with the Heritage Protection Bill in 2008 (DCMS). It was hoped that the confusion and interpretative nature of the field would be categorically defined, whilst clarifying the importance of maintenance and setting duty of care upon historic building owners within legislation. An early caveat in the introduction to the Bill warns of the disappointment to come.Warning that the legislation was not to be seen as the priority or the panacea to the problem, could help to explain the seventy written submissions Chapter Five- Statutory and Policy Aim e F lton