Defence Secretary Philip Hammond called back to Parliament to explain Afghan strategy Most joint patrols and advisory work with Afghan troops will now only be conducted at the battalion level or above, while co-operation with smaller units will have to be "evaluated on a case-by-case basis," the International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) said. The move comes amid mounting concern over "green on blue" attacks on coalition forces. So far this year, 51 international troops have been killed by Afghan forces or militants wearing their uniforms. The Ministry of Defence said there had been 18 "green on blue" UK fatalities since 2008, including the nine killed this year. In 2011, there was only one such death. The House of Commons Speaker John Bercow granted an urgent question from Conservative MP John Baron and agreed to call Mr Hammond to explain the new policy - and its effect on Afghan security policy. ISAF insisted that it remained committed to its partnership with the Afghan National Security Forces. (ANSF) But there are concerns that the decision undermine the training programme for Afghan forces which are due to take over responsibility for security by 2014. "Most partnering and advising will now be at the Kandak (Battalion) level and above," ISAF said in a statement. This does not mean there will be no partnering below that level - the need for that will be evaluated on a case-by-case basis and approved by RC (regional) commanders. In some cases, ANSF are fully capable of increased independent activity and their advisers will simply be stepping back to advise from the next level. Mr Hammond revealed last night that Prince Harry, who is serving as an Apache helicopter pilot in Afghanistan had been moved to a guarded location during an attack on Camp Bastion last Friday. Speaking on BBC 2's Newsnight last night, he said: "Clearly there are fall-back plans and I can't go into the detail of them - but once we knew on Friday night that the perimeter at Bastion had been breached he would have been moved to a secure position under effective guard." Asked if that meant Prince Harry was not treated the same as every other soldier, the Defence Secretary said: "Clearly if we had a VIP in theatre and there was a breach of the perimeter security, anybody who might, by nature of who they are, be a target, they would be put in a secure location." He added: "He is serving there as an ordinary officer but clearly there are additional security arrangements in place that recognise that he could be a target himself specifically as a result of who he is." Afghan deputy foreign minister Jawed Ludin said he understood Nato's efforts to protect its forces but insisted the move did not represent a "break in the partnership" to train Afghan forces to take over in 2014. "This insider attack phenomenon is a matter of deep concern for all of us," he said. This is a challenge that has come up in what is really a very essential mission and that is to get the Afghan forces up to speed. We are fully aware and conscious of this and how important it is and that it could affect our joint effort and we are trying our best. For Nato to take measures to reduce the risk of these attacks being repeated is a very natural thing. We totally understand it. But this should not be overstated because these are just some of the measures to reduce risk; they do not in any way represent a break in the partnership that exists on a day-to-day basis and this will continue. He said Kabul was "not in any way concerned about the strategic impact" at this stage. What we are concerned about is that this could, if not prevented, lead to a strategic setback. But at this stage it is just a measure, with other measures that are required. There are so many alternatives there. Joint operations are crucial but they could be conducted in a way that reduces the risk of Nato soldiers suffering these attacks. Answering an urgent question in the Commons, Mr Hammond insisted the strategy of "mentoring and training" Afghan army and police was vital to the war effort, adding: "We cannot and we will not allow the process to be derailed." Shadow foreign secretary Douglas Alexander said the ISAF announcement "begs more questions than it answers." Why did Philip Hammond not even mention it yesterday when he addressed MPs in the House of Commons? Was it that he didn't know or did he choose not to tell MPs? But sitting beyond that question is the deeper question: does this represent a temporary tactical response by military commanders on the ground or does it represent a more strategic shift in the mission? If we are in a position where a regional commander is generally unwilling to grant the authority for troops to go out on patrol with Afghan soldiers, that would severely compromise the capacity of the mission to deliver its objectives. Conservative MP Bob Stewart, who commanded UN troops in Bosnia as an Army colonel, welcomed the decision to scale back mentoring work with Afghan troops and police. He said British troops should now be withdrawn from Afghanistan "as fast as possible," and said he believed Mr Cameron and Mr Hammond were now working to this goal. "I would say totally scale it back, so none of our troops are mentoring anyone below battalion level," he said. I really feel for soldiers who are sent out to do this job. I have been in that sort of position myself and it is terrifying," he said. I don't see why we should continue to push our young men out into the field just to be targets.