It has been three-and-a-half largely successful years, but when Paul Garvin steps down as Chief Constable of Durham Police next week, it is against the backdrop of a bitter row about the future of the force. He tells Nick Morrison why he couldn't just walk away from it all.

AT moments of rising tension, Paul Garvin can always turn to his speed camera. It may be an odd move for a chief constable who has set his face against the cameras - and whose force is the only one in the country not to use fixed cameras - but the one sitting on his desk is six inches high and squashy.

"It's a stress buster. One of the chief superintendents got it for me at a conference," he says. "It's the only fixed speed camera in the whole of Durham."

His opposition to gatsometers - gatsos for short - has made him something of a reluctant champion of the motorist. But while he may have been isolated among the country's 43 chief constables in his refusal to install the cameras, he has stood his ground despite the criticism.

He's taken the same steadfast approach to the row which has dogged his last few weeks as head of the Durham force. After three-and-a-half years as Chief Constable and at the age of 56, he leaves next week with the future of policing in the North-East in the balance.

On one side is the proposal to create a force covering the entire North-East, taking in the Durham, Cleveland and Northumbria forces. On the other is a plan to split Durham Constabulary in two, with half absorbed by Cleveland in a new Tees Valley force, half by Northumbria. Mr Garvin has come down firmly in the first camp, putting him at odds with the champions of the Tees Valley approach.

At times, it has become personal. Dave McLuckie, chairman of the Cleveland Police Authority, said Mr Garvin was not the best person to judge the best future for policing, describing him as "someone who is on the verge of retirement and will play no part in whatever new structure is created".

Mr Garvin clearly bristles at the comments. "That is absolute twaddle," he says. "I have got a bigger stake in this than Dave McLuckie can ever have. I have invested 37 years of my life in trying to deliver the best police service that I can, particularly in the Cleveland area but latterly here in Durham.

"I'm a guy who comes from the North-East, I'm staying in the North-East, I do not want to saddle myself, my wife and my family with a second-rate police service. I want to get the best police service that I can.

'IHAVE a phenomenal investment in making sure they come up with the right result. There would be nothing easier for me than to walk away from all this hassle and leave it to someone else."

He is scornful of the proposal coming from Cleveland to create a Tees Valley force. The Tees Valley proposal would not meet the Home Office criteria for new forces, including that they should have a minimum of 4,000 staff, and would cost more.

"It is too small. It would still be far smaller than the bulk of the current police services in this country. It lacks the capacity to do the job in terms of counter terrorism and organised crime. And it doesn't have the financial viability.

"It would cost the people of Durham and Darlington an extra £50 a year for what is likely to be a worse service."

He claims the Tees Valley plan has more to do with politics than policing, describing it as a proposed takeover. "Why should a police force sitting 32nd in a league out of 43 decide it wants to take over half of one of the top performing police services in the country?

"In footballing terms, it is like Crewe saying they want to take over half of Liverpool. That is not a professional way of engaging in any discussion or debate about policing."

He says this row is the biggest disappointment of his time as chief constable. "We have got into a squabble whereas we should be concentrating on the public and how we can deliver a good service for them."

It is not a situation he anticipated when he announced his retirement in June. He could see a restructuring coming and had intended to pass on the baton before it got underway, but when the Home Office accelerated the plans he found he was caught up in the debate.

"The way to deliver for the public in the North-East the best policing service that we can is to have a single, regional police force," he says. "Why have three chiefs? Why have three headquarters? If we have one of each that is going to be a damn sight cheaper and we can put a lot of those savings back into front line policing.

"We want to hang on to local divisions and local policing," he adds, mindful of fears that a regional force would take policing further away from the communities, "but reorganise the headquarters so we can operate as a single unit and put more resources into full-time policing."

He says Durham's own experience is an example to what benefits a North-East force could achieve. When it replaced its six divisions with two, a north and south, two years ago, it meant the equivalent of an extra 100 officers.

But his enthusiasm for a merger represents an about face from an earlier position. When a restructuring was mooted in 2003, Mr Garvin came out against the idea. He says now that much of his opposition was a result of the turmoil affecting Cleveland Police at the time, when the force was synonymous with scandal and the wounds from the Lancet inquiry into Ray Mallon were fresh.

"It was the height of Cleveland's difficulties and I was concerned there would be a real distraction away from local policing. That has changed, time has moved on and we're now talking about creating new organisations," he says.

"It isn't mergers and it is not takeovers or amalgamations, it is about creating new organisations and that gives us some real opportunities to take a great step forward, rather than just shuffling forward. I would be opposed to the shuffle, but this is a great step forward."

While he says he is proud of the work Durham Police has done in combating crime, the need to fight organised and large-scale crime, not to mention terrorism, would place too great a strain on the resources of a small force.

BUT he recognises the emotional blow which would come with the loss of a Durham force. "It is a great tragedy that the name of Durham, and 160 years of history of policing as County Durham, it is a great shame that that would go, there is no doubt about that," he says. "But things change, you have got to build on what is good and you cannot be locked in the past." The upside for Durham, he says, is that the city would be the ideal location for the headquarters of a North-East force.

Despite the row over restructuring, he says most of his time in Durham has been upbeat. He is particularly proud of the way the force coped with its own reorganisation two years ago, and its position in the police league tables. A Home Office report last month found Durham was improving in four out of seven areas measured, and was rated as "excellent" in reducing crime.

His departure means his speed camera policy is now in the hands of others, although his successor Jon Stoddart is believed to share his view, and in any case he reckons the tide is turning his way. "Our strategy is working and we're delivering better casualty reduction than a lot of the police services who are hell-bent on speed cameras," he says.

"But virtually every force in the country now is changing its stance. There is less emphasis on speed cameras because it is just an unsubtle tool."