TESSA Jowell is gambling on her package of reforms reversing the decline in National Lottery sales. We respectfully advise the Culture Secretary not to put her shirt on it.

The slump in ticket sales since lottery fever gripped Britain nine years ago was inevitable. In the initial excitement we ignored the statistics and believed the hype: "It could be you." Today we are a more attuned to the 14 million to one odds against winning the jackpot, and have realised: "It won't".

To lay a bet, any punter must believe they stand a chance of winning. The lack of even smaller pay-outs in the main game has persuaded many regular Lottery players to quit.

Camelot attempted to counter this trend by introducing new games with smaller prizes and better odds. But these have not brought enough players back.

There are two reasons why. Firstly, gamblers have many more outlets compared to when the Lottery began. They can bet on the Internet, via mobile phones and through interactive TV.

Secondly, Camelot has failed to market its games effectively. Its long-running monopoly appears to have dulled any creative edge, so we welcome the Government's belated decision to award licences to other operators.

Ms Jowell also wishes to reform the system for distributing the money raised for good causes. This has always been controversial. Early on, there was outrage at huge, elitist grants, notably to the Royal Opera House; more recently a grant to a group campaigning against the deportation of asylum seekers provoked a fuss.

These stories tend to overshadow the way Lottery grants have made a real difference to countless grassroots organisations.

But the Culture Secretary is right to say there is a "democratic deficit" in how the good causes grants are awarded. Her idea to allow newspapers like this one to run ballots on where the money should go has the advantage of letting local Lottery players decide how their money is spent. It is worth exploring further.

Updated: 11:47 Thursday, July 03, 2003