What an odd statement. Given that the use of the word "quality" is in itself merely a promise of characteristic and not necessarily a good one, it looks like the sort of thing that one might expect from a PR firm working with faceless MegaCo. But it seems to be the position of CAMRA... if this story is to be believed:
Her Majesty's Revenue and Custom's guidelines added that he must pay 20p duty a bottle, measure how much alcohol is in his beer and record how much malt he buys. Mr Shields from Bishop's Waltham, Hampshire also had to get a personal licence to sell alcohol and undergo a criminal records check by the police. 'It's totally over the top for someone who just wants to sell beer to friends,' he said. But Campaign for Real Ale spokesman said: 'It's right that if you are selling it to people then you have to make sure it is of a demonstrable quality.'
Paul posted the story for the quirk of a fan being forced to be a brewer but it strikes as having another angle... the presumption that bureaucratic registration is somehow related to creating goodness. What I mean by this is this - is the same beer be better free or sold? Is not the question of "demonstrable quality" separate from the terms of the transaction? In this take on the story, the CAMRA rep goes further suggesting the man sticks with home brewing. Why wouldn't they support such nano-brewing?
The other thing for me is if that was all the government needed from me to set up a tiny brewery operation, I would do it in a heartbeat. Sadly, the powers that be here in the Great White North would never allow it.