From some of the phrasing, it sounds like they may be rowing back somewhat from the commitment Ed Vaizey made a fortnight ago, for tax breaks to be in the first budget, but in essence the will may still be there.
Perhaps at the root of the problem is the way politics are being conducted here. The immediate criticism that gets raised in the wider media about any specific planned fiscal measure is very damaging to open discussion, so they are not discussed.
Most fiscal measures have complex effects which are very hard to get across in sound-bites.
For example in this case a tax break for our industry needs to be set in the context of the potential results - it should result in a net financial inflow within the term of the parliament - as happened in Canada - where roughly three times as much money came in to the country as inward investment and revenue as was spent on tax breaks.
Yet today in Britain it would be heralded as just another tax break, with the presumption it would only cost money.
They have taken a lot of heat for their sensible position on National Insurance, but this has been badly twisted by the media and the encumbents. Maybe that is the reason it is not in the manifesto?
Having said that, I would have thought the sting has been taken out of this as all three main parties are up for such a break - or at least were two weeks ago.
I'm sure we will know in a few days.