Polling found those questioned were confused about how the money is spent, 10 years on from the lottery's launch.

Three-quarters of respondents told the survey an independent body should maintain control over lottery money.

The poll for the National Council for Voluntary Organisations questioned more than 1,000 people.

According to the ICM survey, most of those questioned believed asylum seekers got the same amount of cash from the lottery as organisations working with disabled people or the elderly.

But figures show asylum organisations received �7m, 2.5% of the �285m allocated to charities from the Community Fund in the 2002-2003 financial year.

In comparison, village hall projects received double that figure.

A fifth of the payouts, �63m, went to disability projects.

Charities working with the elderly received 11% of the total funds - �31m - four times the figure going to asylum organisations.

A further �59m went to projects linked to debt, unemployment, training and welfare.

New legislation

Legislation reforming the way the lottery works is expected to be included in this year's Queen's Speech after ministers pledged to overhaul the way it is run.

One of the key issues expected to be debated is who decides how lottery money is spent.

The legislation is expected to create a new lottery distributor and merge two of the three grant-making bodies, the New Opportunities Fund and the Community Fund.

The NCVO said its survey found the majority of people wanted the distributor to remain independent of national and local government.

Stuart Etherington, chief executive of the NCVO said: "Ten years on from its launch the public are determined as ever that the Lottery retains its independence.

"If the Lottery really is going to be returned to the people, as the Government has said it will, then we will have to see an improvement in the public's awareness of where the money to good causes actually goes.

"They have stood little chance so far, with media reports mainly dwelling on a handful of controversial grants at the expense of stories about millions of pounds of funding that go to local communities."