The Charles Haughey story is both worse than is now appreciated and better than is now allowed. It is worse in that the financial scandals surrounding him are far more extensive and of far more significance than anything revealed by the Dunnes Payments to Politicians Tribunal. It is better because whatever improprieties attached to his personal finances, Charles Haughey did make a real and substantial contribution to Irish public life.

Since he first assumed a position in government in 1960, Charles Haughey has enjoyed a lifestyle costing far more than the income he earned from public office.

There was the purchase and upkeep of the mansion at Kinsealy, the purchase of the island in Kerry and the construction of a house on it at enormous cost, the purchase of racehorses and their upkeep, the wining and dining in some of the State's most expensive restaurants, the showering on friends of lavish gifts.

We know only that part of this lifestyle from 1989 to 1991 was financed by a £1.3 million gift from Ben Dunne. What is surprising about this is the relative innocence of it.

It had always been assumed that Charles Haughey was selling political favours for money. We now know that in this instance at least it was untrue. Why is there such indignation over the discovery that he was a "kept man" when we had thought he was a "bought man"?

But the £1.3 million could not have financed the lifestyle for long. There must have been other contributions to finance the deficit between his remuneration from public office and his expenses. Such contributions may have come from one or a combination of three sources.

First, from property deals entered into in the 1960s and, possibly, the 1970s. Secondly, from straight payments by people who were done substantial political favours. And thirdly, from contributions to Fianna Fail which may have been diverted towards Mr Haughey's own finances.

The favours done for the Goodman organisations in the period 1987 to 1989 were enormous and, in the national interest, inexplicable. It was disappointing that the chairman and sole member of the Beef Tribunal, Mr Justice Liam Hamilton, did not examine whether policy on export credit insurance was in any way influenced by any financial connections between senior members of the government at the time and the Goodman organisation.

There is a perplexing reference in the introduction to the Beef Tribunal report to connections between the beef industry and politicians.

It says: "In view of the nature of some of the allegations (about improprieties in the beef industry) the Tribunal sought particulars of contributions made by companies or persons engaged in the food processing industry to political parties, ministers and a number of individual members of Dail Eireann, from the parties concerned and the companies making the contribution."

The report continues: "The Tribunal received full co-operation from all parties concerned and the relevant details were supplied as requested by the Tribunal. The Tribunal does not intend to refer further to this matter or report thereon as the Tribunal is satisfied that such contributions were normal contributions made to Political Parties and did not in any way affect or relate to the matters being inquired into by the Tribunal."

This is very curious. Why did the tribunal seek information about contributions to Ministers and other politicians, made by companies or persons in the beef industry, only from the beef industry itself and the political parties?

How would the political parties be in a position to speak one way or another about contributions made to individual politicians? Why weren't the politicians themselves asked? Indeed, why weren't the financial accounts of the political parties and the personal finances of the politicians concerned examined?

And how could the tribunal be satisfied that all contributions made to political parties were properly reported and that there was no connection between such contributions and policy decisions without at least some investigation of these issues?

This is particularly surprising given that the State was put at risk for up to £200 million on export credit insurance on projects which yielded no benefit to the State or society whatsoever.

There is no record of a favour of anything like this magnitude being done for anybody ever, and yet there was no investigation by the tribunal into whether such an apparently inexplicable policy decision was in any way influenced by financial contributions to senior political figures.

This is not at all to suggest that anybody in the Goodman organisation acted improperly or other than with disinterested and generous motives.

But wouldn't it have been odd if Larry Goodman (a) were not asked to assist in the resolution of Mr Haughey's financial difficulties in the 1980s as Ben Dunne was in 1989 and (b) if Larry Goodman did not also respond generously?

Certainly, in the light of the recent revelations, the failure of the beef tribunal to examine this issue is perplexing.

The management of Fianna Fail's finances during Mr Haughey's tenure as leader, according to party insiders, was lax. There was concern that the delineation between the party's and Mr Haughey's finances may not have been defined as sharply as might have been financially prudent. But this confusion affected more than Mr Haughey.

Other senior members of Fianna Fail, according to party sources, received donations towards the party's finances but, it seems, such donations did not all surface in the party's accounts.

If there is to be an inquiry into Mr Haughey's finances, inevitably it will have to encompass an examination of Fianna Fail's finances. And, if so, the inquiry should extend into whether others in the party diverted monies intended for the party centrally either into their own constituency organisation or into their own pockets.

Mr Haughey was not alone in treating such matters irregularly, and he himself is aware of others who were involved and who remain senior figures in the party.

But it is not just Charles Haughey and Fianna Fail that have questions to answer about funding. A big question mark hangs over Fine Gael.

How did the party's chronic debt problem suddenly get resolved once it got back into government at the end of 1994 and into 1995? We are told that big business always wants to support a winner and when Fine Gael was perceived to be a winner on its surprising return to government in December 1994, big business started to back the party again. But why should that be so?

Quite apart from Charles Haughey and the finances of Fianna Fail and Fine Gael, by far the greatest scandal in this area is the manner in which the political system is funded generally.

All the politicians of the major parties are "kept men" or "kept women" of big business simply by virtue of the fact that the parties are financed by big business or at least by the well-off in society. What is essentially different from individual politicians getting large donations from wealthy people and political parties getting donations from the same people?

Whichever it is, the political system is bought.

The only resolution of this is to fund parties exclusively from the Exchequer. An unfortunate consequence of recent revelations is to make that politically more difficult. The electorate would now be aghast that politicians and political parties should receive all of their funding from the taxpayer.

But it is the only fair way to fund the system - any other way would be hopelessly biased.

Finally, some praise for Charles Haughey. However great were his financial improprieties and however grievous his deceptions and perjuries, he did do the State some service. He was crucially important in the strategy that led to the economic recovery after 1987 and he was crucially central to the starting of the peace process, which bore fruit after he left office.

When we regain our sense of proportion and fairness about Charles Haughey we may well conclude that on balance he was good for Ireland.