The chief executive of Camelot has said that reducing the regulation around society lotteries may not actually increase money for good causes, as others have suggested.

Andy Duncan (pictured) was giving evidence at a Parliamentary inquiry into society lotteries this week when he said that creating a “free-for-all” by reducing regulations could not increase money going to good causes, and instead could create consumer confusion.

He said that the existing model, used by Camelot, has worked successfully for 20 years and that moving away from this model “that still operates in the rest of the world” would be "highly risky".

Duncan went on to say: “If we end up with a free-for-all we might see total sales go up a bit but I doubt we’ll see good causes [money] go up in absolute terms. You’ll certainly have a lot of consumer confusion.”

An independent report published at the beginning of the month which was commissioned by the People’s Postcode Lottery had concluded that the lottery's contributions could increase more than tenfold to £130.2m if regulations were relaxed. It also concluded that the relaxation of regulations was not likely to impact negatively upon the National Lottery.

Duncan said that he was concerned by medium-sized society lotteries such as the People’s Postcode Lottery and the Health Lottery - who see themselves as competitors to the National Lottery - because of the amount they spend on marketing.

One member of the panel said that Duncan should understand the need for large marketing budgets, in light of his own marketing career which included building the 'I Can’t Believe It’s Not Butter' brand.

Duncan responded by saying that he is pro-marketing and pro-competition, but added: “This isn’t just a normal grocery product, this is actually generating £1.75bn for good causes. That then gets put back into society. It’s a very different position from a tub of margarine.”

Dawn Austwick, chief executive of the Big Lottery Fund, and Carole Souter, chief executive of the Heritage Lottery Fund, also gave evidence at the session.

Austwick told the panel that the relationship between society lotteries and national lotteries is a very complementary one but she was concerned that by disrupting the “ecology” of the current system it could have a negative impact on funding.

Souter added she was also concerned about any unintended consequences that reducing regulation of society lotteries could have.