Different companies are expected to be given the chance to run lottery games and the public will get more say over which good causes should benefit.

There will also be a new Young People's Fund, channelling �200m into projects to help the disadvantaged.

In an interview with BBC Radio 4's Today programme, Ms Jowell said that the changes were being introduced to increase the "competition and excitement" of the lottery.

Should Camelot keep its contract to run the National Lottery? Is it time for a new operator? Would you like to see the public have more say in how the money is spent? Or is there a danger that less fashionable causes could lose out?

Thank you for your e-mails. This debate is now closed. The following comments reflect the balance of views we have received:

Not ever having been a lottery player (I prefer to contribute directly to charities I support), I have to say that the programmes that have been on the BBC centred around it have been poor to say the least. No one cares about a second rate quiz show centred around a zillion boring repetitions of the same old thing - balls going round and popping out t'other end. Take it back to one a week, give it five minutes after the news, put it in the hands of an non-profit making organisations and stop wasting our time.
Katherine, UK

There are many deserving causes out there that need lottery money that would not meet the publics "approval". Things like drug rehab, asylum seeker organisations, inner city organisations etc, all of which aren't quite "sexy" enough or don't particularly meet joe publics idea of a needy cause
Vish, UK

The reason that sales for the two main weekly lottery draws are declining is that the proliferation of games - scratch cards, Thunderball etc - have two effects - they divide the market and confuse the punter. My view is that simplicity is the answer - reduce the games to two weekly draws, and thus increase the prize money available. This could be used to increase the number of smaller prizes available as well as raising the jackpot on occasions. Another initiative for Camelot would be to promote the subscription and online playing methods really hard - thus reducing the need to physically buy a ticket each week. I enter both weekly draws by subscription purely because I don't need to remember to buy weekly tickets.
Colin Forbes, UK

It needs to be run as a not for profit organisation Allyson, UK

I expect more people would play if two situations were met. One: If the prizes were more evenly spread - why not have fixed smaller prizes? That way there would be more left in the coffers, there would be no "big" winners, there could be a greater prize for 4 and 3 numbers and I would like to see a prize of a free ticket for getting two numbers. Two: It needs to be run as a not for profit organisation - if this were the case then no one would complain about it going to "arty" charities as there would be plenty of money to go around to all charities.
Alyson, UK

The lottery should be run on a not for profit basis, with a single weekly draw. No thunder ball, no scratch cards and no mid week draw. I think most people just want a chance to win a big prize on a Saturday night. I have not purchased a single ticked since the introduction of the mid week draw, and if sales figures are anything to go by, I am not the only one. I am not interested in where the money goes as long as it is not in some fat cats pocket, but I do miss the good old days of the �20 Million roll over, even though I know I have more chance of finding a million pounds in a plastic bag than I have of actually winning the jackpot.
Tim Nicholson, United Kingdom

No - we elect people who we then pay to make decisions. This idea of handing the decision back to the people is just buck passing and is the lazy option. Lottery funding has done some great things but for some reason the Government have been very quiet about it.
Richard Hough, UK

The lottery should stay, but without all the paraphernalia that goes with it Richard Doering, Surrey, UK

The lottery should stay, but without all the paraphernalia that goes with it. The German lottery takes up a two minute slot following the news. The presenter presses a button, the machine does its bit and then they confirm the results. In short, no celebrities advertising their latest album, book or film and no game show format with ridiculously easy questions. As for the lottery 'projects', the choice of beneficiaries is just bizarre. This money should be put back into the prize fund to increase the smaller prize totals. Maybe this should be addressed separately too with smaller jackpots but larger payouts for matching less numbers.
Richard Doering, Surrey, UK

A little more sense in the allocation of 'good cause' funds would go a long way to winning back the public's faith in the lottery. Many people feel that lottery funds are thrown away on undeserving projects, while serious charities and our national infrastructure are crumbling. With prize monies less tantalizing than before, and a total lack of faith in the good causes - no wonder the people are abandoning the lottery in their droves.
Sarah, UK

No-one buys a lottery ticket to provide for worthy causes Malcolm, UK

No-one buys a lottery ticket to provide for worthy causes. They hope to win enough money to change their lives. The reason for lottery sales falling is the greed of Camelot by adding more and more games. Go back to the one draw on a Saturday. And, yes, it would be nice to have a say on where the money raised for good causes goes.
Sandra, UK

What no one seems to mention here is the large percentage that doesn't go to the punter or the charity but to the government coffers. The decline in revenue has meant they have lost a good source of income. No wonder they are worried and are trying to boost sales. The lottery is just another stealth tax aimed at the hopelessly optimistic.
Duncan, London, UK

I want to know how the Government can think about giving us a say on lottery money but not on the new EU constitution. Either it believes in consulting the people or it doesn't. Just another pathetic "initiative" to go in the bin with all the others.
Malcolm, UK

Reduced interest in the lottery is because the public aren't as stupid as the Government and Camelot must think we are - we've realised there's no real chance of winning it, "in it" or not!! I would play the lottery if I believed I had a better chance of winning enough money to clear my debts, buy a new car and take a holiday, while several other families were appreciating the same windfall. More, smaller pay-outs is the answer. Yours, in the real world, Hazel.
Hazel, Wales

Nothing more than a taxation on the poor Neil Wallace, Northern England

The National Lottery should never have been created in the first place. The money going to, so-called, 'good causes' should come from government and be sourced by taxation. The lottery, in effect, amounts to nothing more than a taxation on the poor.
Neil Wallace, Northern England

I played the lottery for years, always buying four tickets per week. I stopped nearly two years ago when I realised how little of the money was going to what I consider to be good causes, I had long given up on winning anything, and only played to feel like I was joining in and supporting charity. Instead I now put �4 per week into a jar, which I empty twice a year. From this we have enough for a nice meal out, or tickets to a show, and for a healthy donation to a charity of my choosing. The Government wastes enough of my money, so now I waste this little bit myself instead!
Natalie, UK

The lottery is a tax. A tax that preys on those who can't understand maths and therefore the hopeless huge odds against winning. Get rid of it and scratch cards now.
Pepe, UK

The government had its chance to get the lottery right by awarding it to Branson. Instead it took the easy way out and gave it back to Camelot, which few people I know actually wanted. Many people think it was a brown envelope job and since that day I haven't bought a ticket.
Wayne Griffin, UK

The public are becoming disheartened at the way the money is dished out. The aged who want a few bob for the village hall, the sports clubs who apply to buy new equipment. These get nothing. Asylum seekers get payouts, the Dome gets payouts, and now the Olympic bid will get payouts. What about the local communities. Small sums of money can make a world of difference to these people, if only they managed to "qualify" for payouts.
Paul, UK

Having twice weekly multiple lotteries has diluted the attraction of playing Martin, England

I would like to see The National Lottery restored to a single weekly draw. Having twice weekly multiple lotteries has diluted the attraction of playing to such an extend that most people can't be bothered. By making the lottery an "event" once more, people are more likely to play.
Martin, England

All this sounds wonderful, but it doesn't address the main problem with falling ticket sales. We were told it could be you, but unfortunately now we know it probably won't be. That incentive to buy the ticket just isn't there anymore, and until something is done about that then sales will just keep falling further.
Caroline, UK

Didn't we recently go through a complete bidding process to select a company to run this that would increase the "competition and excitement" of the lottery??
David Morgan, UK

Will they listen to what people want? Bob, UK

So the Lottery is to be shaken up again! But will they listen to what people want? i.e. A more evenly balanced prize system. No they'll just try and give us more games like International Lotto. Everyone I have ever spoken to about the Lottery thinks there should be a better balanced prize field, but every time they decided to amend it, we always get the same old nonsense. If you want more people to play then you've got to give them more chances of winning something, not more chances of winning nothing.
Bob, UK

Successive governments have used the lottery for their own schemes (Bottomley's Opera House and Tony's Dome. It has become a money box for them to abuse and not for the original purpose it was intended.
Wally Brown, England

I do not think it is a good idea that the public should get a say as to how the money is spent as this will not help those organisations that are not viewed by the public as worthy but nevertheless perform good work for the less advantaged (e.g. asylum seekers)
Ed, France (UK ex-pat)

Let Sir Richard Branson have a go. A Virgin lottery would attract me back again.
Rob, N.I.

It would have commanded more respect if it had been non-profit making S Smith, UK

I've never bought a lottery ticket and never will. Its' a mug's game. It would have commanded more respect if it had been non-profit making. New Labour should have made this change.
S Smith, UK

Once again Minister and Camelot are missing the point about the decline of Lotto sales. Very few people care about the good causes those who play want to win. Increase the lower winning prizes and sales will go up
Patrizio Franchin, UK

It's often said (amongst people that are aware of the outlandish odds of winning) that the lottery is a tax on people that can't add up. Maybe this signals a unique triumph for the Government's education policy.
Pete, UK

Most people don't think about the good causes they are helping when buying the lottery tickets, they think of the possibility of winning. If there were more smaller prizes, say of �1,000 to �50,000 instead of one very big prize, then more people would return to playing the lottery and this would inadvertently help more "good causes" - the punter.
Sally Kelleher, Gibraltar

There are three reasons lottery sales are down. Firstly people are sick of their money for good causes going to undeserving charities that you wouldn't dream of giving money to. Letting the public choose where the money is spent would alleviate this problem and increase sales. Secondly, the amount that the executives at Camelot earn is also off-putting. Thirdly, the problem is people are greedy and have realise that their chance to win a big prize is tiny.
Andrew, UK

Get Camelot out and replace them with a government run, non profit making body. Stop giving excessively to arts causes and put more money into what the lottery was first started for, worthy causes - �200 million is a drop in the ocean compared to what the lottery can potentially raise.

Allowing the public to set up direct debits too will encourage more to do it and keep doing it but not until we are confident that "good" causes are going to benefit and not the upper class, arty crowd that can afford their own improvements.
Russ, Uk

I suspect it is only a small percentage of lottery players who play because they want to help their communities. The majority want to win a pile of money, and fair play to them. However, giving 'the public' a say over how the money is spent could set a dangerous precedent. We are already seeing cutbacks in government grants to important arts companies, which means they need to tap lottery funding. If 'the public' has this final decision we'll be living in a cultural wasteland.
Alan, UK

Camelot should have been kicked out long ago. We need a non-profit organisation running the lottery, not a giant corporation in it for the money.
Dan, UK

Allocation of funds to good causes and who actually runs the game are secondary issues. The priority should be narrowing the prize gap between jackpot winners and people with 4-5 winning numbers.
Jon, UK