TWO of Worcestershire's highest-profile public figures have refused to appear before a council watchdog to be grilled by politicians, it has emerged.

The High Sheriff and Lord Lieutenant have sparked a row at County Hall after they rejected a request to answer questions in public about what they do.

Both of them insist they are ultimately accountable to the Queen and do not have to appear before the county council's Overview, Scrutiny and Performance Board (OSPB) to justify their roles.

The decision has infuriated the board's chairman, Councillor Richard Udall, who says he's been "snubbed" by the duo.

But the council's leadership insists they should not be subjected to a gruelling public grilling to justify themselves – saying councillors have no right to examine the monarch or her representatives.

Lord Lieutenant Patrick Holcroft is the Queen's representative in the county but does get a council budget of around £20,000 and administrative support at County Hall.

His duties include arranging visits for the Royal Family, presenting honours and awards, supporting reserve forces and cadets and encouraging charitable giving.

He has sent the board a letter saying county council chief executive Clare Marchant could answer questions on the role and its costs, but it would not be suitable for him.

The OSPB has a reputation for being a political bear-pit which examines all sorts of council policies.

High Sheriff Michael Hogan, who does a similar civic role in Worcestershire, is appointed by the Queen's privy council but does not cost taxpayers a penny as his duties are self-funded.

The role of High Sheriff dates back to Saxon times and is an honorary post but continues to perform some of the vital historic duties in Worcestershire, such as ensuring the wellbeing of Her Majesty’s High Court judges when on circuit in the county and being in attendance for royal visitors alongside the Lord Lieutenant.

Cllr Udall had asked both to appear before the County Hall body to "justify their roles", saying they are "public figures not above scrutiny" just one month ago.

Today, he said: "I am very disappointed they are unwilling to be held to account, we've been snubbed.

"In the case of the Lord Lieutenant £20,000 might not be a lot of money compared to the council's overall budget but anybody getting public money should be held to scrutiny."

Councillor Peter McDonald, Labour group leader, has called it an "insult" and "affront" to the council.

“The taxpayers of Worcestershire expect value for money and at this rate it is hard to believe we are receiving any value,” he said.

“If we are to receive royal visits then we should ensure that we do receive value for money and if need be either carry out the function in-house which would be a lot cheaper or at least open the post up to competition.

“The Lord-Lieutenant is making charges to the public purse and therefore should be made accountable, just like anyone else who spends taxpayers’ monies.

“Not to do so is an affront to hardworking families who contribute to the public purse.”

The council's leadership has issued a statement on Lt Col Holcroft's behalf saying the board has no right to "scrutinise the monarch or her representatives".

Councillor John Campion, cabinet member for transformation and commissioning said: "The Lord Lieutenant for Worcestershire is directly appointed by Her Majesty.

"It is not the place of the elected members within the council to scrutinise the monarch or her representatives.

"The council has rigorous budget scrutiny processes including the very small resource we allocate to support the lieutenancy in Worcestershire on behalf of the Queen."

He insisted: "The role of the lieutenancy is valued by residents in the work it does promoting business and good causes across the county."

Mr Hogan, 71, who farms just outside Tenbury, said: "I was very happy to go along, but when I checked with the authorities they said I was answerable to the privy council, and therefore the Queen.

"My role is the one public post in the county with no salary or expenses, it's not in any way costing taxpayers.

"There is no salary, no expenses and I contribute a lot to charity. So the view was that ultimately, there was nothing there to question me about.

“I sent an email back saying I don’t think I need to come.”

Had they accepted, it would have been the first time ever that both post-holders made an appearance before the OSPB to take questions.