It is expected that the new system will allow security officials to scrutinise who is talking to whom and exactly when the conversations are taking plac, but not the content of messages.
Labour tried to introduce a similar system using a central database tracking all phone, text, email and internet use but that was ditched in 2009. It followed concerns raised by internet service providers and mobile phone operators over the project's feasibility, and anxieties over who would foot the bill.
The coalition's proposals are likely to be introduced in the Queen's speech on 9 May and will centre on internet service providers gathering the information and allowing government intelligence operatives to scrutinise it.
"It is vital that police and security services are able to obtain communications data in certain circumstances to investigate serious crime and terrorism and to protect the public," said a Home Office spokesman, who said the plans would be brought forward "as soon as parliamentary time allows".
"We need to take action to maintain the continued availability of communications data as technology changes. Communications data includes time, duration and dialling numbers of a phone call, or an email address. It does not include the content of any phone call or email and it is not the intention of government to make changes to the existing legal basis for the interception of communications."
Civil liberties campaigners have strongly criticised the revival of the plan because of the risk it could breach the privacy of law-abiding Britons.
"Whoever is in government the grand snooping ambitions of security agencies don't change," said Isabella Sankey, director of policy at Liberty.
"The Coalition agreement explicitly promised to 'end unnecessary data retention' and restore our civil liberties. At the very least we need less secret briefing and more public consultation if this promise is to be abandoned".
The intention to introduce the new system was signalled in the Strategic Defence and Security Review, published in 2010. It announced that as part of efforts to counter international terrorism, the government would "introduce a programme to preserve the ability of the security, intelligence and law enforcement agencies to obtain communication data and to intercept communications within the appropriate legal framework".
It said communications data has played a role in every major counter-terrorism operation carried out by the security services and in 95% of all serious organised crime investigations. Any changes would be "compatible with the government's approach to information storage and civil liberties".
Internet service providers have voiced concern at the plans, questioning the cost and practicalities of installing systems to harvest the so-called "packet" data that shows senders, recipients and the times of messages. They are also worried that their customers would not tolerate the compilation of personal communications information.
"There would be a lot of work to establish how much this would cost and then there are the moral and legal arguments about whether it could or should be done," said a source at one internet provider. "If we were to do this then there would also be questions asked of us by our customers as well."
One MP predicted that the law would face a tough passage through parliament.
"I am sure there will be considerable pressure brought to bear as the proposals are debated for protections to be built in to protect people's privacy," Conservative backbencher Margot Jame told Sky News.
David Davies, the former shadow home secretary who ran against David Cameron for the Conservative party leadership said the proposals represented an unnecessary extension of the power of the state to "snoop" on its citizens.
"It is not focusing on terrorists or on criminals, it is absolutely everybody," he told the BBC. "Historically governments have been kept out of our private lives. Our freedom and privacy has been protected by using the courts by saying 'If you want to intercept, if you want to look at something, fine, if it is a terrorist or a criminal go and ask a magistrate and you'll get your approval'. You shouldn't go beyond that in a decent, civilised society but that is what is being proposed."
