Lobbying firm founded by former minister collapses with £4.5m debt amid Epstein‑related scandal, officials stonewall document requests

In February 2026 the lobbying consultancy Global Counsel, founded by former cabinet minister Peter Mandelson, entered insolvency with debts exceeding £4.5 million, a demise that coincided conspicuously with the impending arrest of its founder on allegations linked to his historical connections with the late financier Jeffrey Epstein. The firm's rapid financial collapse, occurring just weeks before law‑enforcement action, has been framed by observers as the terminal point of a series of reputational injuries stemming from an Epstein‑related scandal that had already undermined confidence among clients and prospective investors alike.

In March, parliamentary official Little, invoking her exclusive responsibility to enforce a humble address, requested from the Foreign Office the documentation concerning the security‑vetting decision that permitted Mandelson to retain privileged access, only to be told that the sought‑after summary and its audit trail would not be disclosed. Subsequent to a meeting in mid‑March with Sir Olly and a senior member of his team, during which Little again petitioned for the same records and was repeatedly assured that the information would remain unavailable, she resorted to a direct request to UK Security Vetting, emphasizing that the refusal to provide the documents effectively contravened the parliamentary mandate she was tasked to uphold.

The episode, which juxtaposes a high‑profile corporate failure with an official's inability to obtain even basic procedural paperwork, underscores a broader pattern in which security‑related decision‑making remains opaque, accountability mechanisms are circumvented by bureaucratic inertia, and parliamentary tools designed to compel transparency are routinely neutralized by vague refusals. Consequently, the collapse of Global Counsel not only illustrates the financial vulnerability of firms attached to politically exposed persons but also highlights the systemic reluctance of state institutions to disclose the very vetting criteria that justify privileged access, thereby perpetuating a self‑reinforcing cycle of secrecy and selective enforcement.

Published: April 23, 2026