THERE are many reasons why it is not good to let the gap between the highest and lowest paid become too wide. There is the obvious fact that failing to pay the least well off enough to feed their families condemns them and their children to poverty and deprivation.

But a large wealth gap affects everybody else, too. It has long been recognised that more equal societies do better. It is obvious really: creating an underclass of have-nots inevitably leads to resentment, instability and increased crime.

New figures which suggest that, after ten years, the wage gap between the lowest earners in York and those on average incomes may finally be reducing are very welcome, therefore.

It is only a small change. Last year the lowest earners in York earned 45 per cent less than those on average earnings, whereas the year before they earned 48 per cent less.

It is too soon yet to judge whether this small change is significant, the Joseph Rowntree Foundation says – but at least the figures are encouraging.

The city council has made reducing the gap between the lowest paid and the rest a key target in its poverty strategy. The council’s Stewart Halliday today welcomed the figures as a positive trend. But he conceded York still has a larger pay gap than the UK average.

In the liberal, fair-minded city that produced Joseph and Seebohm Rowntree, that’s just not good enough. So as Mr Halliday himself recognises, the effort to reduce poverty in York must remain a top priority.