In January, the British government published its policing white paper, From Local to National: A New Model for Policing. This promises the biggest shake-up of policing in England and Wales since Sir Robert Peel invented local police forces in 1829. And yet nearly half the population has no idea it is even happening.

The government plans to scrap our existing 43 local police forces and replace them with potentially as few as 12 regional ‘mega’ forces alongside a new souped-up National Police Service. At the same time, it promises to give the home secretary unprecedented powers over policing priorities and senior police leadership.

This looks like a very bad idea. Trying to police vast areas just doesn’t work. Scotland amalgamated its local police forces just over a decade ago, and the resulting Police Scotland now suffers from deep financial deficits, falling public confidence, fewer police officers and decreased community visibility.

The government has consulted neither the public nor even the police themselves about its plans. So earlier this month, I organised a public meeting in Leigh-on-Sea, alongside Essex Police, Fire and Crime Commissioner Roger Hirst, to give the public the thing they have been denied so far: a voice. The prime minister would do well to listen.

Nobody seriously believes that British policing is perfect. There are forces that are too small and need to improve, and serious organised crime does not stop at county borders. A greater degree of national coordination makes obvious sense. The question is whether abolishing local forces and creating giant regional ones is actually the answer. There is remarkably little evidence that it is.

Consider the scale being contemplated. In the East of England, Essex is likely to be merged with Norfolk, Suffolk, Cambridgeshire, Bedfordshire and Hertfordshire, creating a police organisation serving more than six million people. A chief constable responsible for six million people cannot have the same knowledge of the communities under his charge as one responsible for a county of two million. Local priorities inevitably become regional priorities. The further decision-making moves from the community, the harder it becomes for residents to influence what their police force does.

This isn’t an abstract constitutional argument. Local knowledge can save lives. Police officers know the roads, estates, businesses, schools, coastline and communities they patrol. They know where tensions are building and which local organisations can help solve problems. A former Southend chief superintendent at the meeting described how knowing local businesses, residents and officers creates a sense of personal responsibility and accountability. That relationship is impossible to replicate from a regional headquarters potentially hundreds of miles away.

There is an irony to the government’s plans. It appears to be trying to solve the perceived problems of policing by creating organisations so large that they risk reproducing the very management problem it has identified in the Metropolitan Police – that it is too large an organisation for too large a population. The performance of Essex Police relative to that of the Met illustrates the problem. As Hirst explained at the meeting, the much smaller Essex Police has a crime-solving rate around twice the national average and more than three times that of the Met.

As the saying goes, if it ain’t broke, don’t fix it. If a particular force is failing, deal with that force. If a particular function would benefit from national coordination, nationalise that function. But don’t use a sledgehammer to crack a nut.

There are obvious areas where greater collaboration makes sense. Terrorism, cybercrime and ‘county lines’ drug dealing traverse borders. Essex already works closely with Kent and regional organised-crime colleagues. Last year, Essex’s own units disrupted around 220 county-lines operations.

That demonstrates the importance not of amalgamation, but of collaboration between police forces. The same applies to back-office functions. Forces already work together on procurement, training and technology. If a genuinely national function makes sense – policing aviation, for example – there is an obvious case for bringing it together nationally. But bigger organisations are not automatically more efficient.

The Association of Police and Crime Commissioners has estimated the government’s proposals could cost around £500million. As Hirst suggests, this is not new money for policing. It is being taken from the existing policing budget. Imagine what that could be spent on: more neighbourhood officers, more detectives, greater forensic capability and so on.

In other words, that half-a-billion pounds could be spent on tackling crime. After all, residents don’t wake up in the morning worrying about whether their police force has the optimum organisational structure. They worry about car theft, burglary, drug dealing, anti-social behaviour, shoplifting and whether anyone will come when they call the police.

Then there is the problem of political control. The proposed reforms would give the home secretary powers to direct the commissioner of a National Police Service, who could then direct local chief constables. Local policing could therefore be directed from the centre of government. That should concern everyone, irrespective of party.

British policing has traditionally operated on the fundamental Peelian principle that police officers enforce the law on behalf of all of us, independently of the government of the day – ‘The police are the public and the public are the police’. Ministers set the legal framework and police leaders decide how policing is operationally delivered.

The distinction between government and the police protects both the police and the public. Giving a home secretary greater powers to direct policing priorities – alongside greater influence over the appointment and removal of senior police leaders – risks changing that constitutional settlement. Today’s home secretary may be responsible. Tomorrow’s might not be.

Incredibly, there has been no meaningful national public debate about any of this. If there were, it is likely the majority would be arguing against the proposed changes. An Essex-wide survey of around 1,700 residents delivered a striking verdict: nearly 70 per cent opposed regional police forces and 85 per cent regarded visible local policing responding to Essex’s particular problems as extremely important.

That is not proof that the public overwhelmingly opposes police reform. But it does show that people need to be properly consulted.

The government should pause its plans. It should be making policing more visible and more accountable to communities – not creating vast bureaucracies and a state-controlled police force. A police force serving six million people may look efficient on a Whitehall spreadsheet. It could prove disastrous on the ground.