A SECOND Stansted runway is both "perverse" and "unworkable", according to MPs who have expressed doubts as to whether the expansion will happen.

During a parliamentary debate on the Aviation White Paper, several MPs raised doubts about the project, citing legal challenges and questions over its financial viability.

Shadow Transport Secretary Damian Green accused the Government of "fudge and incoherence" and said: "I think it is legitimate to question whether the Government's option of an early second runway at Stansted will ever come to pass."

During the House of Commons debate Mr Green was joined by Braintree Labour MP Alan Hurst and Bishop's Stortford Conservative MP Mark Prisk in attacking the White Paper.

Mr Green said it was significant that many of the legal challenges centred around the idea that the document was "fundamentally flawed."

He said: "There are four aspects to this flaw the lack of commercial justification for a second Stansted runway, the potential for mixed-mode use of runways at Heathrow, the failure to allow comments on proposals to extend the runway at Luton, and failure to give proper consideration of other options around the South-East."

A new Stansted runway would cost £4bn and questions were raised about its commercial viability. Stansted operator BAA has admitted prices are likely to increase but says this will not deter travellers.

Mr Green said the higher charges could drive away the operators and noted that if BAA tried to fund the expansion with cross subsidy from other airports, it could face more legal challenges.

He poured scorn on the lack of communication between Government departments, adding: "The Transport Secretary says he wants a second runway at Stansted within a few years because the surrounding area is thinly populated. County council planning officers have said the necessary road and rail improvements would cost the county £13 billion. These would need to be in place before the runway is scheduled to open by 2012."

Mr Prisk urged ministers to review their decision "before it is too late".

He said: "The decision is perverse because it ignores the views of the local community and of many people in business and the aviation industry. It is unworkable because of the large gaps in the road and rail plans and in the financing of the £4bn scheme.

"This is a runway that nobody wants, few can get to and even fewer can afford. That's the result of this misguided decision at Stansted."

A Department of Transport spokesman said it had considered a range of options before publishing the White Paper. "We stand by the White Paper and we will meet any legal challenges in court," he added.

BAA has said that despite the comments it was still confident of a second runway. A spokesman said: "We believe it will happen and we are pushing on regardless."