To be honest I don't see anything wrong with the suggested wording. I accept this is only a face value issue, and yes the details are yet to be forthcoming. However, if this is an accurate representation of the text, any 'healer' who is working with the highest of intentions would never dream of making absolute promises anyway.
I have been a crystal therapist and Bach Flower practitioner for years. Never in that time would I say "this will definitely cure you......"
I think if this is the only area referenced in the new act it will be interesting indeed. The Fraudulent Mediums Act replaced the Witchcraft Act and has a fair bit of historical fame attached to it. If it does not mention anything about mediumship, tarot etc will that give carte blanche to those who are in the minority (the charlatans) to carry on with no recourse? I think not. Proving someone is a fake or charlatan is not easy. Even if it were proven, our courts are hard pressed to cope with the usual caseloads let alone prosecuting someone who is in front of them for fraudulent mediumship. To be honest if they have taken payment, it would probably be covered these days under the Theft Act and offences of deception etc.
So in a nuthshell I don't have a problem with what is being proposed or the wording, based on what has been highlighted so far. Genuine healers may welcome this, but to safeguard yourself I would always recommend having clients sign something to this effect so there is no misunderstanding of what may be possible as a result of a healing session.
Now, it will be interesting to see how this act does affect those of us also in the tarot world
Davina