Terms of Reference for Risk Mitigation Independent Power Purchase Procurement Programme (RMIPPPP) Inquiry

This premium content has been made freely available

Mineral Resources and Energy

07 December 2021
Chairperson: Mr S Luzipo (ANC)
Share this page:

Meeting Summary

01 Sep 2021 Minister on Risk Mitigation Independent Power Producers Procurement Programme
03 Aug 2021

Legal opinions: Karpowership procurement investigation; CEF & NECSA oversight

Preliminary Terms of Reference for the RMIPPPP (Confidential)

Letter from The Speaker (Confidential)

 

In this virtual meeting, the Portfolio Committee deliberated on the proposed terms of reference relating to the Risk Mitigation Independent Power Purchase Procurement Programme (RMIPPPP) Inquiry.

The Committee Researcher highlighted that the terms of reference could access, among other things, the ability of the Department to discharge its fiduciary duties as they relate to the programme. It could investigate the affordability of the programme, failure to comply with procurement prescripts, it could also investigate governance-related issues such as looking at the process leading up to awarding of the successful bidders. It could investigate the conduct of senior managers of the Department in meeting the bidders before an award was made. The Committee could also look at the circumstances leading to the changing of the initial closing date for bids. There were also issues around environmental authorisations and exemptions which could be investigated.

Members were informed that that the investigation could take up to 120 days. The timeframes would be determined by the nature and form the Committee decided on. The Committee would also have to agree on whether it wanted to call witnesses. The Committee would also have to decide whether it wanted to conduct the inquiry physically or virtually.

The Committee deliberated on whether it should appoint an evidence leader or not. The members in favour of appointing an evidence leader pointed out that it was going to be quite a complex inquiry. The document named four pieces of major legislation that the Committee would be looking at. None of which were dealt by this Committee. If the Committee did not have some sort of specialist legal help it might get into a bit of a mess. That was why it was recommended that the Committee appoint an evidence leader. Other members believed that the Committee was well capable of handling the matter without the evidence leader. They argued that no compelling argument was made for the Committee to have an evidence leader. What role was the evidence leader going to do differently which the Committee could not do itself? The Committee was capable of unearthing, addressing all the concerns that were there.

The Committee resolved, in principle, on the terms of reference that will guide its work

Meeting report

The Chairperson welcomed the members and all those present to the meeting. The Committee was dealing with the terms of reference related to the Risk Mitigation Independent Power Purchase Procurement Programme. Members of the Committee had to say what they thought should be done with regard to the terms of reference. The Committee was seized with quite a number of issues that were pertinent to society at large. That was one of the issues the Committee was supposed to tackle in the best interest of society and the economy.

He noted that there had been incidents that had taken place. One of the issues that the Committee was expected to grapple with was the fuel crisis that the country continued to be confronted with. This was compounded by the miscalculations that took place.

He hoped that when the Committee dealt with the programme for the first quarter of next year, it would be able to see what was suggested so that the Committee could receive as much wisdom as possible. He had asked the researcher to work on what he thought were the areas for the Committee to make a determination or to guide what could be done.

He apologised to the Committee. Between himself and the Committee Secretariat there was miscommunication. He thought he had spoken on the matter. The information had now been forwarded to members. He had not come close to influencing this process. He was as innocent as all of the members. He knew that this was a contentious issue. There was nothing that the Committee would push under the carpet. The Committee had to confront issues as they presented themselves. He had asked the researcher to work on the terms of reference. He had not told the researcher what he needed to do. He had requested that after the researcher presented his suggestion, which was the direction the Committee should consider, that there would be no questions asked towards him. This would be done to protect the researcher. The members would have to deal with what was being presented. This was just a suggestion and to assist members. The final decision was the members’ decision that would have to be taken at the end. He asked the researcher to take the Committee through his presentation, focusing on the work that the Committee had to consider doing.

Proposed Terms of Reference relating to the inquiry into the Risk Mitigation Independent Power Purchase Procurement Programme (RMIPPPP)

Mr Sivuyile Maboda, Researcher, Portfolio Committee on Mineral Resources and Energy, briefed the Committee on the proposed terms of reference relating to the inquiry into the Risk Mitigation Independent Power Purchase Procurement Programme (RMIPPPP). This was to guide the discussion of the Committee. The document was divided into five sections, section A to E. Section A detailed the background to the RMIPPPP. The programme had attracted 28 preferred bidders. Of the 28 bidders, 11 were successful. There were many allegations surrounding the programme. Section B detailed the powers of the Committee per the rules of the National Assembly. The Constitution and the Rule 227 of National Assembly empowered the Committee to conduct an enquiry into any entity or institution that fell under it. Section C detailed the list of meetings that the Committee had with the Department and other relevant stakeholders such as the Parliamentary legal service. The Committee held five meetings about the RMIPPPP that included meetings held with Parliamentary legal services. Section D described what the terms of reference could look like. The terms of reference could access, among other things, the ability of the Department to discharge its fiduciary duties as they relate to the programme. It could look into the affordability of the programme; failure to comply with procurement prescripts; it could also look at governance-related issues such as looking at the process leading up to awarding of the successful bidders. It could also look at the conduct of senior managers of the Department in meeting the bidders before an award was made. The Committee could also look at the circumstances leading to the changing of the initial closing date for bids. There were also issues around environmental authorisations and exemptions which could be looked into. Section E was about the procedure that the Committee may have to follow depending on the nature and form of the inquiry it wanted to conduct. Before proceeding with the inquiry as proposed, the Committee should agree on the nature and form the inquiry should take. It was noted that the investigation could take up to 120 days. The timeframes would be determined by the nature and form the Committee decided on. The Committee would also have to agree on whether it wanted to call witnesses. In conclusion, members should note that the terms of reference were broad, so it was up to the Committee to discuss on whether it wanted to broaden or narrow the investigations. The Committee would have to decide on how it wanted the inquiry to be conducted. If the Committee wanted a broader inquiry there might be a need to appoint an evidence leader. If the investigation was narrow then there would not be a need to appoint an evidence leader. The Committee would also have to decide whether it wanted to conduct the inquiry physically or virtually.
The Committee Secretariat read a letter from the Speaker of the National Assembly that was addressed to the Chairperson. The Speaker noted that a group of concern civil society organisations had made a submission communicating their concerns about the choice of Karpowership as preferred bidders by the Department of Mineral Resources and Energy. The civil society organisations wanted an investigation to be performed into the RMIPPPP. The group requested that Parliament establish an ad-hoc committee to conduct an investigation into the matter. The Speaker responded that there was an established practice that in the event a Committee already existed to consider a matter the establishment of an ad-hoc committee should be discouraged in order to save resources. The submission was referred to the Committee for consideration in terms of its mandate.

The Chairperson said that what Mr Maboda presented was a guide on what the Committee could do. Part of the resolution of the Committee was that the inquiry, if it was conducted, needed to take place in-person. The Chairperson asked for the views of the members.

Mr K Mileham (DA) proposed that the Committee look at the terms of reference that were used in the Eskom inquiry as a basis for procedure and process for going forward with this particular inquiry. The Committee needed to be fairly broad in its approach. There were a number of issues that arose. There was the issue of alleged corruption. There was the issue of procedural irregularities. There was the issue of financial close. There was the issue of license awarding. There was the issue of compliance with the IRP. The terms of reference should include an investigation. Within the inquiry an investigation should be included into whether or not the RMIPPPP complied with and made provision for in the IRP and whether the Department was compliant in its mandate to update and manage the IRP going forward.

He agreed with the Chairperson that the Committee had taken the decision to have a physical inquiry. He did not see a reason as to why that could not take place in Cape Town. He was not sure why it had to take place in Pretoria or Johannesburg. From a cost perspective, Parliament had the facilities and resources to conduct it, physically, in Cape Town. He suggested that the Committee call witnesses, avoid PowerPoint presentations and avoid presentations from entities. For example, if NERSA was called to give information then it should be the individual rather than NERSA the entity or if the IPP Office was called then it should be the CEO of the IPP Office. In the interest of accountability, the Committee needed to start looking at individuals rather than to collective responsibility or to avoid responsibility by saying it was an entity’s decision. The Committee needed to start looking at the individuals that were responsible for the various actions. He believed the Committee should broaden the scope of the inquiry. He believed that an evidence leader was necessary. The Committee should follow the approach adopted by the Eskom inquiry a couple of years ago where Advocate Vanara did a sterling job from within Parliament and with Parliament’s resources of leading evidence and establishing the facts in that matter.

Mr M Mahlaule (ANC) said that it did not get any broader than this. The Committee had deliberated on what it was looking for before. The way the terms of reference was crafted covered what the Committee was looking for. What the Committee was looking for was what Mr Mileham mentioned except the last one. Mr Mileham had mentioned at least four matters which included alleged corruption and other issues. That was what the Committee was looking for. That was why in the terms of reference, the Committee agreed not to venture into whether the RMIPPPP was affordable or not. That was not the Committee’s job. The RFP that was issued to all companies that had interest was issued in a manner that it was issued. It was no longer the issue about affordability or not. It was an emergency procurement that was needed. He was not sure why the Committee was venturing into whether it was affordable or not affordable. He discussed the failure to comply with procurement prescripts. That was part of what the Committee was looking for. The governance related issues were part of what the Committee was looking for. He was not sure about number four, the environmental competition authorisation and exemptions that were issued to some of the bidders whether that was something the Committee was looking for. Or had Environmental Affairs already made a decision around that? He was not sure why the Committee would be calling some of the people who were to be called as witnesses. He was open to persuasion by the Committee. He thought that the inquiry was broad enough to an extent where it was too broad for the Committee to deal with what it was looking for. The Committee was looking for alleged corruption because that was what came to the Committee, alleged corruption and malfeasance. He suggested the Committee look into that and debate whether the inquiry needed to be broadened further or slightly reduce the scope. He was open to persuasion on the matter.

Mr Mileham said that he was not going to go into affordability. He had not mentioned it at all. He did not know where the affordability issue came from because he did not raise it today.

Mr Mahlaule raised a point of order. Mr Mahlaule responded to Mr Mileham and said the issue came from the terms of reference under ‘governance related issues’. His comments were not in response to what Mr Mileham had initially said. He was responding to the terms of reference that were put before the Committee. There was no need to respond to each other if the member did not see what the other member was talking about.

The Chairperson asked Mr Mileham to continue and for the Committee to focus on the discussion at hand.

Mr Mileham discussed the list of potential witnesses, institutions or individuals, that was included in the preliminary terms of reference. There were a couple of bodies and individuals he thought would add value here. NERSA should be included in that list; it was not. He responded to something Mr Mahlaule said about environmental issues. The fact of the matter was that the awarding of these contracts was conditional on the bidder having environmental approval or environmental waver. It was within the Committee’s mandate to investigate whether or not that had been complied with, whether or not there had been any irregularity in that regard. It was very important that the Committee look into what process was followed there and what the outcomes were of those determinations. It was certainly not second-guessing the Portfolio Committee on Environmental Affairs, Forestry and Fisheries. It was just for the Committee to make sure from its perspective, an energy perspective, those issues were complied with and there was proper process.

Mr S Kula (ANC) said the best approach is for the Committee to deal with the matters in chronological order. The Committee should firstly agree on the terms of reference for the inquiry, whether the Committee was amending those ones that were there or sticking with them as they were. Once the Committee had concluded that process it could then move into what form the inquiry would take. The Committee should deal with all those issues that were set out under procedure, from point A until the last point. The Committee should address all contentious issues like if the Committee decides to call on witnesses, what form would it take? The Committee needed to agree on the approaches it would take rather than the members being all over the place. That would not help the Committee resolve this matter. The Committee should deal with the issues in that order under the terms of reference. The Committee should come to agreement so that it knew what direction it was taking.

The Chairperson said that if one looked at the letter of the Speaker; it said that there was a Committee and it was seized with that power. According to the discussion that was held with the House Chairperson there was no need for an evidence leader. Most of the allegations were done within the capability of the Committee. He could write to the House Chairperson and get an official response. The point was that things were not waiting for the Committee. The letter said that the Committee was capable to undertake that assignment and then give reports back. If members wanted that in writing he could provide that. He thought the Committee had resolved on the issue of the evidence leader. He thought that the broader part of the inquiry could be an area where the Committee still needed to find a way to deal with. The truth of the matter, which the Committee was in agreement with at the last meeting, was that there were allegations of an attempt to corrupt the process. The Committee had asked the Parliamentary Legal Service for advice, and they advised the Committee to proceed even if those matters were in court. The Committee agreed that with regards to the allegations of corruption there was no doubt that the Committee could not shy away from that. The Committee had to deal with that issue which was why the Minister was invited; it was to specifically respond on the alleged attempt to corrupt the process. The Committee then agreed, and he agreed with Mr Mileham, that there had to be individuals invited with regards to that specific matter. He clarified the issue of Johannesburg. The first point was that the majority of those who had made allegations and those whom the allegations were made against were in Johannesburg. The incident which was alleged to have taken place which sought to manipulate the system, took place in Gauteng. It was clear that the Committee should make it easier for those who could assist it in its investigation and not make it difficult. The Committee should go to them. The Committee wanted all the individuals who had made allegations relating to the soliciting of bribes to come and testify. The Committee would then have to ask Parliament to pay for the cost of travelling and accommodation. The Committee might find that some of the allegations were true and then the inquiry would have to go deeper. The members might decide, for example, to visit the restaurant where the alleged activity had taken place. The Committee might want to interview the manager to find out who booked the restaurant and hotel. That was an issue that should be managed logistically so that the Committee did not have a problem. That was why in the last meeting the Committee agreed it would be in Johannesburg. That was where the incident took place. The Committee would also have to look at point two of the suggestion. If individuals did not pitch up or did not want to cooperate then the Committee may have to subpoena individuals. What if that happened? That subpoena process was too long. The Chairperson suggested that while the Committee looked at the broad issues that it agreed on one thing, that it cannot shy away from the allegations that relate to the process of attempting to manipulate the process. The Committee could then continue to grapple with how it dealt with the broader issues. For example, the issues that related to affordability, financial viability, issues of compliance with certain sections of the law and who could make those determinations. The risk was very high that there were many independent institutions, including chapter nine institutions, and the Committee may express a view that approved the whole process. Those institutions might come and highlight flaws in the process and call it an irregular process. A determination of what was legal and not legal could only be made by an institution of the judiciary. Some of the matters, no matter what the views of the Committee were, might still be subject to an authorised institution to make an opinion on. While the Committee grappled with how far it could go it needed to agree on one issue that was immediate, that it could not shy away from. That it needed to continue whether there was an evidence leader or not. The Committee might realise that in April of next year it was discussing the same thing that was raised in April of this year. There were certain things which the Committee could quickly put to rest. The Committee could then present its findings and say that it still needed to purse another part with regard to the broader allegations. He asked the members if that was too difficult? That was his opinion. He was trying to assist.

Mr J Lorimer (DA) said that the document set out everything very clearly. He was agnostic on the location of the inquiry. It was sufficient that the Committee was assessing the relative costs of each venue and that entered into its final decision. He was slightly worried if the Committee did not appoint an evidence leader. This was going to be quite a complex inquiry. The document named four pieces of major legislation that the Committee would be looking at. None of which were dealt by this Committee. If the Committee did not have some sort of specialist legal help it might get into a bit of a mess. He recommended that the Committee appoint an evidence leader.

The Chairperson asked what the Committee should do if that request was declined.

Mr Lorimer responded that if it was declined then it was declined but it was something that the Committee should at least ask for.

Ms V Malinga (ANC) said that she was not a legal guru. She asked if appointing an evidence leader meant that the members would become spectators? The evidence leader was the individual who questioned the people who were alleged to have done the wrong things. That meant that the members would be just sitting and listening to the evidence leader posing questions and people answering. That meant the Committee would not have any role. She wanted clarity on that matter.

The Chairperson responded that the evidence leader was someone who led the evidence. Then the members could ask questions. The Committee would still need to come back and report with regard to the matter of the evidence leader. He did not think it was a difficult matter. It may have implications on the agency. If the Committee took that exercise, could it then leave the issue of the terms of reference? The Committee could not do the terms of reference and then bring in the evidence leader.

Mr Mileham said that the evidence leader would be required to structure the case for the Committee, to provide a framework for this Committee to evaluate whether the facts were substantiated or not. Once the evidence leader had provided the initial input and subjected the witnesses to questions, the Committee would then have the opportunity to ask whatever questions it desired. He referred to the Eskom inquiry in 2017 where the Committee questions went far longer than the evidence leader’s questions and unearthed a lot of information and evidence that later formed part of the Zondo Commission. He discussed whether or not the Committee should decide whether it got an evidence leader before it finalised the terms of reference. He did not believe that was the case. The terms of reference basically provided a scope for the Committee. He was quite happy with the terms of reference as had been provided subject to the inclusion of the compliance with the IRP and the NERSA regulatory process, the NERSA licensing process, being included in that discussion. Apart from that, he did not think the Committee needed to have a decision as to whether or not it needed an evidence leader before it finalised the Terms of Reference. In fact, it would benefit the Committee to approve the terms of reference before that decision was taken. It then gave the evidence leader a framework in which they had to operate and lead the case.

The Chairperson noted Mr Lorimer’s remarks that some of the pieces of legislation that were raised there were quite intense and had no relevance to the Committee. If the Committee got that person who had legal brains that person may find that what the Committee was presenting was like straightjacketing them. Part of the work of the evidence leader was also to look precisely on what the terms of reference were and whether it met the scope of leading evidence. If the Committee discussed the terms of reference before appointing the evidence leader it was like bottlenecking someone and forcing them to go in a specific direction. He was comfortable with the idea of an evidence leader. He was very much uncomfortable about prescribing to this person and putting on someone something that the Committee had already made a determination on. He could not agree on the Eskom inquiry because to the best of his knowledge the evidence leader had been part of the crafting of the terms of reference. He understood that there was agreement on the evidence leader and then later the terms of reference were put in place, approved by the Committee. That is what happened in terms of the Eskom inquiry. He wanted to get the other members’ opinions on the matter.

Mr Mahlaule said that he was open to persuasion. It seemed that what the Committee was debating now might be neither here nor there. He did not see the Committee having a problem with whatever approach it took. Like whether the Committee took the terms of reference as they were or whether it adopted the length of the inquiry as it was or whether the inquiry was in Johannesburg or Cape Town. Though he would prefer it to be in Gauteng because that’s where the complainants and the people involved were. Whether the Committee had an evidence leader or not, it would still ask questions. He wished the Committee would put this to rest and move on. The matter had been coming a long way and the Committee had been back and forth about it. In the media there was a perception that some of the members were defending whatever was alleged to have happened. Maybe it was time for the Committee to allow the inquiry to run the way it had been crafted by the researcher. The researcher was an independent person that no member of the Committee had influenced. He wanted the Committee to move on.

Mr Kula agreed with Mr Mahlaule that the matter needed to run so that it reached its conclusion and drawn to a close because it had dragged on for far too long. He did not agree that there just had to be an evidence leader. There had to be a convincing motivation given to this Committee as to why it had to appoint an evidence leader. He thought that the Committee was well capable of handling this matter without the evidence leader. The Committee could deal with this matter on its own. There had been no compelling argument made thus far for the Committee to have an evidence leader. He wanted those members who strongly wanted an evidence leader to persuade the other members as to why the Committee needed an evidence leader. What role was the evidence leader going to do differently which the Committee could not do itself? He thought that the Committee was capable of unearthing, addressing all the concerns that were there. He did not see the need for an evidence leader. He strongly believed that the Committee could deal with the matter on its own. As long as the Committee agreed on the terms of reference and the form the inquiry was going to take, the Committee would be able to deal with this matter.

Ms P Madokwe (EFF) said that whether the Committee agreed on having an evidence leader or not it was very important that the Committee had a framework that they had to work on. The Committee needed to discuss whether it was adopting the terms of reference as they were or whether the Committee would be amending them. It was very important, and she did not think it would bottleneck the evidence leader. It would be giving the evidence leader guidance on what the Committee was looking into. The evidence leader could also then present to the Committee what would and would not work. She found the suggestion of having an evidence leader quite attractive. That was because even when the Committee was seized with the matter for the first time it was not sure and had to get legal advice from Parliament. Because of how complex and sensitive the matter was it was important that the Committee got someone who was neutral and experienced in dealing with such matters. This should be done so that the Committee was not dealing with the same issues in April or June of next year because it had made blunders. She noted that the Committee had spent almost an hour debating on basics. She was not undermining the Committee and its capabilities, but she was of the view that the Committee should get someone who was used to dealing with inquiries to lead. Having and evidence leader did not close off the members in any way from participating, asking questions and doing its own investigations. She was not sure if the Committee had spoken about the timeframe. The suggestion was roughly 120 days. She wanted the Committee to look into the inquiry being three months at most. That would assist the Committee a lot because it had a lot of other matters that it was seized with which it had not scratched the surface on. The Committee should not spend so much time on the issue. It should be closed as soon as possible.

Mr M Wolmarans (ANC) considered the document that was before the Committee. There were about four or five sections within this document and the better part of it was about the background of where the matter started. Section D was about the terms of reference. He supported the terms of reference as they were. In the document it also referred to dealing with any other related matter, which covered a lot of points that the Committee had been grappling with. He noted the procedure which was covered in section E. Some of the issues that were discussed there give credence to the letter that was received from the Speaker. That was also a good point of departure. He agreed on not exceeding the 120 days. If it was running straight through it would take the Committee about 60 days. He noted where the procedure said, ‘if the Committee decides to call witnesses the following procedure was recommended’. It was just a recommendation; it was not a given. It also said that witnesses would not be able to cross-examine other witnesses but had to be afforded an opportunity to make representations on the draft Committee report before it was adopted by National Assembly. It also stated that the principle of natural justice shall apply to the proceedings of the inquiry. With his limited understanding, he wanted an explanation on the fairness of witnesses not cross-examining other witnesses and waiting for the Committee to finish. He wanted clarity on that matter. His suggestion was that witnesses should be allowed to cross-examine other witnesses. He was open to any clarification that would come through. He was comfortable with the terms of reference as they were at the moment.

Mr Mileham commented on what Mr Wolmarans said about witnesses cross-examining other witnesses. He reminded the Committee that this inquiry was for the Committee to ascertain facts. It was not a judicial inquiry. It was not a judicial process. It was a process for the Committee to reach an opinion as to what happened and whether there should be changes to the procedure or whether there should be consequences within the Department or whatever recommendations might be arrived at as the Committee. To suggest that the Committee should allow cross-examination of witnesses by other witnesses opened the door to an entirely different process and made it akin to a judicial process. He thought that would be problematic in the extreme. He strongly urged that the Committee not go down that route.

The Chairperson said that there was general agreement on the terms of reference. He commented on the members who wanted an evidence leader. These members wanted an evidence leader with a legal background who had experience with inquiries, who would understand the legal challenges as far as the legislation was concerned. The evidence leader should be someone who could assist the Committee be more objective on how it dealt with the matter of this nature. That would be subject to what the Committee would have submitted as motivation. He would then come back to the Committee with regard to the issue of the response. The degree of flexibility should be on the basis that the Committee should try and do everything that was as cost effective but also could assist in the facilitation of a process that would be in line with the recommended timeframe. He asked the members if they agreed on that.

Mr Mileham agreed with the Chairperson’s proposal.

Mr Lorimer seconded the Chairperson’s proposal.

The matter was settled

Consideration and adoption of Committee programme for the 1st term 2022

The Committee Secretariat took the Committee through the draft first term programme of 2022.

The Chairperson asked if the members had any comments on the programme.

Mr Mileham had one concern. There were some recommendations in the Committee’s BRR Report that had not been pulled through as far as he could see. The one related to forensic reports and quarterly reporting on consequence management. There was also quarterly reporting on the implementation of the audit action plans. Had that been covered?

The Chairperson said the programme included a meeting on the reporting of the implementation of the audit action plans, including of the related entities to address the findings of the Auditor-General. Maybe it should be added ‘and other issues relating to forensic outcomes’. The outcomes of the AG should not be the only things discussed. He asked if there was a mover of the programme?

Mr Wolmarans moved for the adoption of the Committee programme.

Ms Madokwe seconded the adoption of the Committee programme.

The programme was adopted

Consideration and adoption of outstanding minutes

The Chairperson took the Committee through the draft minutes for 3 December 2021.

Mr Mileham said that he was not in attendance on 3 December. He had submitted an apology.

The Chairperson asked if there was any mover of the minutes?

Mr Wolmarans moved for the adoption of the minutes.

Mr Mahlaule seconded the adoption of the minutes.

The minutes were adopted.

The Chairperson thanked the members. This was their last meeting of the year. The Committee would meet again next year. He wished the members well over the festive season. The members should stay safe. The situation was getting tense outside. Members had been given tentative dates which were subject to approval by the House Chairperson. He requested that members confirm their availability and their point of departure so that the necessary arrangements could be made.

The meeting was adjourned.

 

Documents

Download as PDF

You can download this page as a PDF using your browser's print functionality. Click on the "Print" button below and select the "PDF" option under destinations/printers.

See detailed instructions for your browser here.

Share this page: