Hammond under fire for Afghan omission Philip Hammond has come under fire for failing to tell MPs or voters about the decision by Nato to scale back its joint patrols with Afghan forces. During a hostile Commons debate, the defence secretary was criticised by MPs from both Labour and his own Conservative party for not being clear about Nato strategy in Afghanistan. The decision to scale back joint operations was taken on Sunday, but Mr Hammond did not mention it during a debate on Monday or in subsequent media interviews. John Baron, the Conservative MP, forced Mr Hammond into the Commons to explain how and why the strategy had changed. Mr Baron told MPs: "At the very least there is confusion with regard to this issue ... The announcement adds to the uncertainty as to whether Afghan forces will have the ability to keep an undefeated Taliban at bay once Nato forces have left. Mr Hammond was told about the policy shift on Monday afternoon, during what he described as a "routine meeting" with a Nato commander. It came after a weekend of attacks by Afghan troops on their Nato allies, which killed four US and two British soldiers. Violence has also intensified in the country in response to a film mocking the Prophet Mohammed. The defence secretary insisted the policy was "not significant," and marked a short-term tactical change rather than a longer-term strategy. He told MPs: "This is not a strategic initiative; it is a tactical initiative, taken by commanders in theatre, operating within their delegated responsibility. We would not seek to interfere with the military judgment of commanders on the ground. Labour accused Mr Hammond of failing to spot the importance of the change, which would mean coalition troops now requiring the approval of the regional commander to carry out routine joint patrols or manning of posts. The gradual handover of big security operations to Afghan forces is a key element in the Nato plan to withdraw troops by the end of 2014. Jim Murphy, Labour's shadow defence secretary, said: "[This] appears to mark a significant change in the relationship between UK, Isaf [the Nato-led International Security Assistance Force] and Afghan forces." Mr Hammond admitted he had not realised when confronted with media coverage of the Nato decision that he had already been briefed on it. He said: "I was given this information, along with quite a lot of other information, during this meeting yesterday [Monday]. I didn't remark upon it and when the BBC reporting was brought to my notice this morning it was not immediately clear to me that this was something that we had discussed the previous day. Mr Murphy called this "an astonishing admission," adding: "Today [Mr Hammond] has been forced to admit that he doesn't even remember that he had been told. Afghanistan is our country's biggest defence priority and there is no excuse for the defence secretary not knowing his own policy. The defence secretary's argument that the decision was not significant was bolstered by William Hague, the foreign secretary, who told a committee of MPs: "The Taliban should be clear that our strategy has not changed." But that argument was undermined by Liam Fox, Mr Hammond's predecessor at the Ministry of Defence, who warned: "The nuances between tactics and strategy can be lost on insurgents, and that the timing of this is unfortunate ... We must redouble our efforts to make it clear to the forces of terror that they cannot push our strategy off course.