Speakers of the House of Commons have left office in many different ways. The first, Sir Peter de la Mare, was arrested. Seven of his successors were beheaded and one murdered. More recently holders of the office have quietly retired. But yesterday Michael Martin made history. He became the first Speaker to be redacted.

The publication of the heavily censored details of MPs' allowances claims provides a final eloquent comment on Mr Martin's tenure. It has been a black period. And it also provides a challenge to his successor. The Speaker dragged to the chair today has to drag the House of Commons out of the dark ages.

When Mr Martin first announced that he was leaving the Speaker's house vacant, this newspaper urged Vince Cable to put himself forward. We believed that he has the good judgment and public appeal to be a great success. His decision not to allow his name to go forward means that there is no single ideal candidate. Some of those who have thrown their hat in the ring are capable figures who might quietly produce real reform. Others might, by their mere election, signal real change and articulate the argument for it. There is no one available who can do both.

The first thing that should be done is to reject the obvious favourite. Margaret Beckett has attained that status because she is the candidate of the Whips' Offices. Mrs Beckett is favoured by Labour whips because she is a friend of their Chief Whip, Nick Brown, has been a faithful party servant and showed, as Leader of the House between 1998 and 2001, a marked sympathy for the executive over the legislature. She is favoured by the Conservative whips because she is not John Bercow.

For all her qualities, Mrs Beckett would therefore be a poor choice. She is the candidate most tied to the current Establishment, and she showed in her stubborn and inept performance on BBC Question Time that she would be very poor at restoring the reputation of the House.

In both these respects, as agent of change and public advocate, John Bercow would be preferable. Yet there is a reason why many of his Conservative colleagues appear allergic to him. He is able but unpredictable, with erratic judgment. His speakership might be a triumph. But there is too great a chance that it would be a disaster.

It is unthinkable that disaster would attend the speakership of Sir George Young. He is politically brave (as he showed as a poll tax rebel) and has been an excellent chairman of the Standards and Privileges Committee. His impeccable handling of the cash for questions issue contrasts favourably with the lamentable handling by others over allowances. Behind the scenes he has endeavoured quietly to promote the power of Parliament over successive governments.

Yet, as public advocate, Sir George might struggle. He is eloquent enough, but his long experience as an insider and his demeanour might suggest to voters that Parliament wanted business as usual. It is vital that they do not believe this.

This leaves only one course of action. The Commons should settle on Ann Widdecombe. In ordinary circumstances this would be an eccentric choice. But just now, her temporary (she is retiring at the election) speakership would confer three advantages. First, it would provide a Speaker able to sort out immediate problems quickly. Second, it would signal that the Commons understood the need to behave differently. Miss Widdecombe is an accomplished public figure. And finally, it would allow a new Parliament next year to choose a new Speaker from a new era - and, this time, from a field of impressive candidates, rather than the current roster of has-beens, also-rans and almost-buts. By then, Vince Cable might have heeded the call to serve as Speaker.