Sounds like they have it about right
> would it make more sense to make money available to remove claimants' tattoos BEFORE they actually have the job interview?
A few problems with that:
Firstly, tattoo removal might not actually help them get a job. (Either they don't get a job, or they get one that doesn't care about tattoos). In that case, you've wasted taxpayer money. If you wait until they have a job offer that is conditional on a tattoo removal, then you don't waste money.
Secondly, there are probably jobs available that don't care about tattoos. They may be lower-paying jobs, but society needs people to do the lower-paying jobs. If an individual chooses to have a tattoo, then that individual should accept the consequences of their choice. They shouldn't expect taxpayers to pay when they change their mind. (If the individual wants to pay for tattoo removal, they have that choice too). Obviously, there can be exceptional circumstances where it's justified for the taxpayer to pay for tattoo removal, but this should not be the norm.
Thirdly, providing tattoo removal more widely would tend to force people to have tattoos removed, even if they don't want to. To get unemployment benefit, you have to show you're looking for work. I can imagine the argument that: "Oh, you have a visible tattoo. That reduces your ability to find work. So you should get it removed, or else we'll have to reconsider your unemployment benefit". (I'm sure that wouldn't be government policy, but I can imagine some Jobcenter workers using it anyway). While I don't have any tattoos and would never get any, I support other people's right to have tattoos.