THERE IS a strange condition to the proposal by the independent study set up by Labour that the National Lottery should become non-profit-making when the contract of its operator, Camelot, expires in five years' time.

This, it seems, might only happen if the lottery regulator thinks it is actually feasible for all the money raised to go back to the people.

Evidently, however, though it is not yet official party policy, Labour suggests that ought to be the case.

And, we are sure, most people would agree with them.

For the proper premiss of the lottery, surely, is to raise as much possible for good causes rather than for millions to be siphoned off in profits for private business.

But why the doubt about the feasibility of running it according to that understanding?

After all, Richard Branson - a man with a hugely successful record in business - was ready and willing to run the lottery on a profit-free basis.

And, surely, his rejected bid was based on firm organisational planning rather than just good intentions.

However, Labour's next-best idea is for the profits to be capped.

Again, we think that the public would agree because they believe in the virtue of their money coming back to them.

Certainly, the report's suggestion that Camelot should not be able to keep the £6million a year raised in interest on unclaimed prizes is one that has much merit.

For whether or not Camelot or anyone should profit from the running of the lottery, it is surely wrong that the operators should profit from money which is, strictly speaking, not theirs.

It is the good causes that should benefit from this interest accumulation.

But when Labour looks at the good causes - already a contentious area, given the numerous controversial awards made so far - it enters a political minefield with its suggestion for some of the areas that might be assisted from the lottery.

These include projects such as training teachers to use new technology and aiding talented youngsters with their development, not just in sports, but in sciences, the arts or mathematics.

Already, it is accused by the other political parties of seeking to use the lottery money to improve services that it is the duty of government to provide - and keep taxation down as a consequence.

If so, the lottery regulator would need to keep a keen eye on such intentions, though few would quibble with the party's broad notion that the nation's children and young people should be designated as a good cause.

But if, with this report, Labour has its finger on the public pulse over how the lottery should be run - by seeking to make it profit-free and, failing that, to maximise the return of the money to the people - it is surprising that it has not dared to cross the threshold of making public services good causes also.

For, despite the debate about the ethics of government using lottery revenue to meet its spending commitments, the public would not quibble about lottery money being spent on improving such as under-funded hospitals or schools - which, arguably, are worthier good causes than opera houses.

Converted for the new archive on 14 July 2000. Some images and formatting may have been lost in the conversion.