CROs are close to bottom of the list for local authority funds and in the present economic climate they are being really squeezed. Formerly xeroxes provided a modest but useful income stream but the rapid rise of digital photography (in those institutions that permit it) has suddenly eroded that income stream. I can appreciate their the rationale for introducing a charge for the use of digital cameras but feel that as there is no staff cost (unlike xeroxing), that there is a moral objection to anything other than a very nominal charge - say 10p per exposure to a £5.00 ceiling per visit.
Users of archives are a very small sub-set of the population so politicians can safely ignore campaigns to safeguard services and not to introduce charges. Amongst archive users, family historians predominate; buisiness historians and industrial historians form a very small proportion of archive users. When institutions embark upon campaigns to digitise material in the collections, they inevitably prioritise material of the greatest interest to the greatest number of researchers. Mine plans are unfortunately especially tricky due to their size.
There are huge inconsistencies between institutions with regard to fees and charges, and with regard to attitudes to copying (from the perspectives both of conservation and of copyright). I have found that undertaking voluntary work for an institution can open doors and change attitudes - besides, there can be a feel-good factor to 'putting something back' into a collection that you are making heavy use of.
With the current economic climate, anticipate further cuts to opening hours (e.g. the National Library of Wales is now closed on Saturdays) and the introduction of more charges (e.g. the Coal Authority charges a substantial access fee for visitors after the first half day's research).
Previous posters have made the point that archives are paid for from taxes and that to levy other charges is unfair. However, many other things are also paid for from taxes but are subject to charges - e.g. swimming pools, bowling greens, concert halls, museums. With speciaist activities such as archival research, effectively the great majority of taxpayers are subsidising the leisure activities of a small minority. In such circumatances, it becomes rather difficult to object to charging archive users fees that are modest compared to the cost of providing the service. Unfairness begins to creep in when the charges become disproportionate compared to charges levied for users of other specialist leisure provision - e.g. the fees levied on Sunday morning sports teams using local authority sports facilities. What do Aditnow members think of being charged the same per-day fee to use an archive as, say, the per-head fee charged to use a swimming pool? In the current economic climate and with the current government, such a scenario cannot be discounted.
.