A health watchdog is calling for a ban on Drugs tests in Bradford where addicts are forced to give a urine sample in front of a supervisor.

Bradford's Community Health Council is appalled at the testing which it says is not carried out in many parts of the country.

It is now trying to encourage alternative methods to be used such as a mouth swab.

When magistrates hand out Drugs Testing and Treatment Orders, aimed at breaking the cycle of drug addiction and crime, addicts have to provide samples several times a week to drug agency Turning Point, which carries out the order on behalf of the Drugs and Alcohol Action Team and the Probation Service.

An offender has to agree to the order but if they refuse, they will be punished in another way and often face a jail sentence.

Lesley Sterling-Baxter, chief officer for Bradford CHC, called the tests demeaning.

She said: "We raised this issue with the Bradford Drugs and Alcohol Action Team which, although it was sympathetic, is not prepared to intervene to change the system because of the cost implications.

"But this method of testing is not accurate enough for the criminal justice system and cannot be used as an indicator in court. So why are they doing it anyway?

"Addicts are human beings and they find it demeaning. Wouldn't anybody? Because these people are under a court order it is like they are prisoners and their basic rights do not matter. We believe they do."

Drug testing using a mouth swab has been approved by the Home Office and is used in some areas of the country.

Dr Michael Ross, clinical director of Akeham House Drug Clinic, uses mouth swabs which he says are more accurate.

He said about observed urination: "It is absolutely intolerable. We believe there are people who are challenging this legally and I think it will be found to be against the European Convention of Human Rights. One of my patients who menstruates heavily found it very distressing."

But Mark Siddall, West Yorkshire assistant chief probation officer, said the two tests were equally as accurate, they were both admissible in court as evidence but the mouth swab test was more expensive.

Speaking on behalf of the Drugs and Alcohol Action Team (DAAT) and Turning Point, he said: "The window of opportunity with mouth swabs is much smaller than with urine samples," he said.

"The Home Office have checked the legislation to make sure it is compatible with the Human Rights Act and offenders are made fully aware of the order before sentencing. But urine testing is more intrusive and has to be watched, which is its main disadvantage.''

The CHC has raised the issue as an area of concern with Bradford Council's Scrutiny Committee, which is investigating drugs services and provision.