For and against library fines

An argument has blown up among librarians over the past week over fines. Those in the anti-fine camp believe that they are putting readers off libraries, while those on the other side of the fence are asking why people would return their books to libraries on time without the threat of a fine. Below, we hear from both sides of the debate.

Frances Hendrix is a library consultant and is against library fines. She writes:

"Why on earth are public libraries charging any fines at all for books not in very heavy demand? What is the purpose of a fine and what does it do for customer relationships?

It seems that monies from fines are treated by the local authority as a valid income stream to help run the library. How on earth did public libraries get themselves into this mess? In most cases it appears that if the same borrower renews a book, then statistically it is counted as a new loan by a new borrower, hence an artificial increase in loans and borrowers, which in turn helps libraries demonstrate demand. Whilst it is vitally important to increase the use and the profile of libraries, staff could certainly be put to much better use than chasing and counting fines. Some libraries have a policy of not charging fines to certain categories of people, so when next returning your overdue book, try to look ill, or down and out.

The other main point being made by librarians is that money raised by charging fines is all "profit" (not a term one expects to see in relation to pubic libraries), but no one seems to have been able to demonstrate whether fine income produces a surplus over the cost of labour and materials involved, and certainly there has been little if any attempt to collect evidence, check with borrowers as to the attitude towards fines or the effect upon customer satisfaction of a fines regime.

Public libraries are a national institution, vital to a civilised society. The first libraries were set up by benefactors who had the vision and ethos of literacy, for all, for free. Local authorities are not so sure, which is why despite all of us paying for libraries through rates and taxation they still see them as an easy target when balancing budgets. Fines do not fix the deficit. Public libraries need to be destinations of choice, and nothing should be done to further deter those who use them.

Sue Williamson works for Cambridgeshire Libraries and is in favour of fines. She stresses that the opinion below is entirely her own, and in no way represents the views of Cambridgeshire Library Service or Cambridgeshire County Council.

As a relatively recent library professional (a mere 10 years) and a much longer user of libraries, I would like to put the case for continuing with library fines.

When a customer borrows something from a public library, they enter into a contract with the service to look after the item while it is in their possession and return it at a specified time. These are the terms and conditions under which the service operates and are clearly stated at the outset. Yes, everybody has paid for that service, but that means that they have paid for the building costs, the stock and staffing costs and all the other hidden costs that are at issue in providing a public service. It does not mean that they can fail to abide by the initial contract.

Public libraries are a community resource and as such everybody has a right to use them. This means that we need to try and provide equal access to all our resources and if customers do not return their items on time, this deprives other users of that resource. In a recent professional forum, this argument was expanded to make a plea for one of the few remaining bastions of social responsibility: there are very few areas where people are contracted to do something in this way and we could see ourselves in libraries as guardians of socially appropriate behaviour.

Furthermore, the argument that the cost of books has come down, while true of universally popular material, is not true of the more specialist items that libraries also provide. In addition the daily costs of housing our collections, staffing libraries and maintaining an excellent public service have risen dramatically.

Also, in the service in which I work, we make it very easy to avoid fines. Customers with e-mail addresses are sent a notification that their books are about to become overdue a few days before the fact and all have the options to renew in person, by automated phone renewal (24-hour service), online and by text messaging. This rather negates the argument that people are too busy to return books on time.

However, I would issue one caveat: I do think that it is important that staff should be well trained in how to deal with this delicate issue. No customer should ever feel judged or blamed when asked to pay a fine and all staff should be flexible and adaptable in the case of extenuating circumstances."