By Christine McCarthy BBC News Online

A Big Brother-style TV vote, or local votes and juries, have been suggested as possible ways of involving a wide range of people in the decision.

But some charities - including those supporting asylum seekers and the arts - fear they will lose out as a result.

Andrew Hogg, spokesman for the Medical Foundation for the Care of Victims of Torture, said his charity was not always high in the public's popularity stakes.

Earlier this year, for example, the Medical Foundation received �329,000 from the lottery's Community Fund for its work helping dispersed refugees.

Most of our work is with torture victims seeking asylum, and asylum seekers are not a popular cause Andrew Hogg, Medical Foundation for the Care of Victims of Torture

That came shortly after fierce criticism of lottery cash given to another unconnected immigration group - the National Coalition of Anti-Deportation Campaigns (NCADC).

"While fully accepting and understanding the view that the public should have a greater say in how lottery money is used, it will be to nobody's benefit if causes deemed unpopular are shunned in future in favour of those with a more populist appeal," said Mr Hogg.

The lottery money the Medical Foundation has so far received - more than �1m in recent years - has helped fund a new purpose-built treatment that will open in London later this year.

'Controversial'

It has also helped to extend the work the charity carries out in the regions, and has helped pay for interpreters and extra caseworkers.

This has been to the benefit of UK society as a whole, said Mr Hogg.

"However, most of our work is with torture victims seeking asylum, and asylum seekers are not a popular cause."

Arts groups were also concerned about their funding being put at the mercy of a public whim.

Decisions about where funding should go are often better made a local level Lawn Tennis Association

Victoria Todd, director of the National Campaign for the Arts (NCA), said about 50% of arts projects in the UK were funded by the lottery.

Yet "some arts projects that have attracted media attention have been controversial" - and could thus become vulnerable to negative public opinion.

'Prejudice'

Despite this, said Ms Todd: "The vast majority have benefited local or regional groups and have left a positive and sustained impact on local communities."

The coverage such groups received in the press, she said, would become even more critical to their survival under such a system.

"We hope that the media will recognise that their attitude and coverage of projects must be responsible if local democracy is not to be overruled by ignorance and prejudice."

However, the principle of the public deciding lottery funding at a local level was welcomed by the Lawn Tennis Association, which is keen to improve tennis facilities across the UK.

It said: "As long as this ensures the money still gets to supporting grass roots tennis, this can only be a good thing.

"Decisions about where funding should go are often better made a local level."