<s>[INST] The next text is a question of a member of the European parliament:"Directive2011/65/EU on the restriction of the use of certain hazardous substances in electrical and electronic equipment (RoHS 2) effectively banned the use of lamps containing mercury, but a derogation allowing their continued use was granted on the incorrect basis that no alternative existed. The Commission commissioned a study by the Oeko Institute which in 2016 concluded that the derogation should be cancelled. That has not happened pending the publication of another overdue Oeko study on socioeconomic factors. Furthermore, in its response to Written Question E-001501/2018 by former MEP Karl-Heinz Florenz, the Commission stated that: ‘certain lamps are also covered by Commission regulations on lighting products under the Ecodesign Directive2009/125/EC that are currently undergoing a review’.  Since RoHS 2 is aimed at reducing toxic pollution (including mercury from lamps) and the Ecodesign Directive is for energy efficiency, the two directives do not need to be aligned or reviewed. Can the Commission please confirm that this environmentally damaging process will not prevent the full entry into force of RoHS 2, as approved by Parliament and the Council?"
Analyze carefully the text and assign it to the most relevant policy area among those listed below. Do not explain your answer and return only a number.
Policy area numbers: 1 = Macroeconomics
2 = Civil Rights, Minority Issues and Civil Liberties
3 = Health
4 = Agriculture and Fisheries
5 = Labour, employment and pensions
6 = Education
7 = Environment
8 = Energy
9 = Immigration
10 = Transportation
12 = Law and Crime
13 = Social welfare
14 = Regional and Urban issues and Planning
15 = Banking, finance and domestic commerce issues
16 = Defence
17 = Space, science, technology, and communications issues
18 = Foreign trade
19 = International affairs and foreign aid
20 = Governance and government
21 = Public Lands, Water Management and Territorial Issues
23 = Culture and media
[/INST]. Answer = [7]. </s>
Directive2011/65/EU on the restriction of the use of certain hazardous substances in electrical and electronic equipment (RoHS 2) effectively banned the use of lamps containing mercury, but a derogation allowing their continued use was granted on the incorrect basis that no alternative existed. The Commission commissioned a study by the Oeko Institute which in 2016 concluded that the derogation should be cancelled. That has not happened pending the publication of another overdue Oeko study on socioeconomic factors. Furthermore, in its response to Written Question E-001501/2018 by former MEP Karl-Heinz Florenz, the Commission stated that: ‘certain lamps are also covered by Commission regulations on lighting products under the Ecodesign Directive2009/125/EC that are currently undergoing a review’.  Since RoHS 2 is aimed at reducing toxic pollution (including mercury from lamps) and the Ecodesign Directive is for energy efficiency, the two directives do not need to be aligned or reviewed. Can the Commission please confirm that this environmentally damaging process will not prevent the full entry into force of RoHS 2, as approved by Parliament and the Council?